JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
JUNE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF STREAM CLASSIFICATION1
Kyle E. Juracek and Faith A. Fitzpatrick2
ABSTRACT: Stream classifications that are based on channel form,
such as the Rosgen Level II classification, are useful tools for the
physical description and grouping of streams and for providing a
means of communication for stream studies involving scientists and
(or) managers with different backgrounds. The Level II classifica-
tion also is used as a tool to assess stream stability, infer geomor-
phic processes, predict future geomorphic response, and guide
stream restoration or rehabilitation activities. The use of the Level
II classification for these additional purposes is evaluated in this
paper. Several examples are described to illustrate the limitations
and management implications of the Level II classification. Limita-
tions include: (1) time dependence, (2) uncertain applicability
across physical environments, (3) difficulty in identification of a
true equilibrium condition, (4) potential for incorrect determination
of bankfull elevation, and (5) uncertain process significance of clas-
sification criteria. Implications of using stream classifications
based on channel form, such as Rosgen’s, include: (1) acceptance of
the limitations, (2) acceptance of the risk of classifying streams
incorrectly, and (3) classification results may be used inappropriate-
ly. It is concluded that use of the Level II classification for purposes
beyond description and communication is not appropriate.
Research needs are identified that, if addressed, may help improve
the usefulness of the Level II classification.
(KEY TERMS: surface water hydrology; stream classification; Ros-
gen; channel form; geomorphic processes; stream restoration;
stream rehabilitation; water resources planning.)
Juracek, Kyle E. and Faith A. Fitzpatrick, 2003. Limitations and Implications
of Stream Classification. J. of the American Water Resources Association
(JAWRA) 39(3):659-670.
INTRODUCTION
The classification of streams and rivers has a
history that dates back at least as far as the 1800s
(Playfair, 1802; Powell, 1875; Davis, 1890, 1899).
Motivations for stream classification range from a
1Paper No. 02091 of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Discussions are open until December 1, 2003.
2Respectively, Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey 4821 Quail Crest Place, Lawrence, Kansas 66049-3839; and Research Hydrol-
ogist, U.S. Geological Survey, 8505 Research Way, Middleton, Wisconsin 53562-3581 (E-Mail/Juracek: kjuracek@usgs.gov).
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
2003
basic desire for description and organization of the
world around us to an attempt to improve our under-
standing of fluvial forms and processes and make
better informed management decisions. Stream clas-
sifications offer the potential benefit of improving
communication by providing a standard terminology
for describing stream types. They also may be useful
for the purpose of stratification in the design of sam-
pling strategies. However, classifications oversimplify
complexities inherent in natural systems. Oversimpli-
fication can lead to misapplication and extension
beyond the original goals of the classification.
Stream classifications have been developed for a
variety of purposes by individuals in several disci-
plines, including biology, engineering, geography,
geology, geomorphology, and hydrology. In this paper,
the focus is on the geomorphic classification of stream
reaches on the basis of channel processes and forms.
Several such classifications are mentioned here. For
additional information the reader is referred to previ-
ous reviews of stream classifications including those
by Hawkes (1975), Mosley (1987), Naiman et al.
(1992), Downs (1995), and Thorne (1997).
Process based classifications include the idealized
fluvial system presented by Schumm (1977) in which
channels within a drainage basin are categorized, in
downstream order, into zones of sediment production,
transport, and deposition. Within each zone the
namesake process is typically dominant, but not
exclusive. Montgomery and Buffington (1997) expand-
ed on Schumm’s general classification with a process-
based framework for classifying channel morphology
and assessing channel condition and response poten-
tial in mountainous regions. In their classification,
659 JAWRA
 JURACEK AND FITZPATRICK
stream reaches are categorized into seven types – col-
luvial, bedrock, and five alluvial channel types (cas-
cade, step pool, plane bed, pool riffle, and dune
ripple). Whiting and Bradley (1993) developed a pro-
cess based classification for headwater streams that
relies on an understanding of the dominant physical
processes acting in the channel and its basin, and the
conditions under which the processes operate. In their
classification, 42 stream types are identified using
hillslope gradient, valley width compared to channel
width, channel gradient, channel depth, and sediment
size as the classification criteria.
An important early contribution to form based clas-
sification was the work by Leopold and Wolman
(1957) in which natural alluvial channel patterns
were described as existing along a continuum that
included braided, meandering, and straight channel
patterns as primary types. Kellerhals et al. (1976)
developed a classification on the basis of channel pat-
tern, islands, channel bars, major bed forms, and lat-
eral channel activity. A hierarchical, form based
classification developed by Rosgen (1996) is described
in the following section.
An ideal geomorphic classification would be process
based, applicable over a range of spatial and temporal
scales, able to accommodate variability both within
and between physical environments, and able to pre-
dict channel response to disturbance (Frissell et al.,
1986; Naiman et al., 1992; Montgomery and Buffing-
ton, 1997). Also, such a classification would include a
historical perspective that documents previous chan-
nel conditions as an indication of the stability of pre-
sent conditions. Kellerhals et al. (1976) stated that
classification should be accomplished on the basis of
homogeneous reaches. Kondolf (1995) emphasized
that, because rivers typically undergo substantial
changes along their length, a classification should
either be limited to homogeneous reaches or address
the longitudinal change by recognizing different
regions or by using a hierarchical system within one
region. A list of 10 recommendations for improving
existing stream classifications is provided by Goodwin
(1999). The recommendations include suggestions to
base classifications on processes and controlling fac-
tors, to base classifications on temporal change and
thresholds, to treat classifications as hypotheses, and
to incorporate stream size as an additional criterion
(Goodwin, 1999).
Several factors have prevented the achievement of
an ideal geomorphic stream classification. Foremost is
the natural variability and complexity of the subject
to be classified. Because stream channels are dynamic
and typically in a state of adjustment, their present
conditions do not necessarily reflect former, long term,
or future conditions (e.g., Kondolf, 1995). Mosley
(1987), citing Pennak (1978), went so far as to state
JAWRA
that most channels are so complex and variable in
character that classification is not feasible. Schumm
(1991) identified 10 problems associated with the use
of present conditions as a basis for extrapolation. The
problems are: (1) time, involving both absolute and
relative time spans; (2) space, involving scale and
size; (3) location, the variability of processes and caus-
es; (4) convergence, the production of similar results
from different processes and causes; (5) divergence,
the production of different results from similar
processes and causes; (6) efficiency, the variable effi-
ciency and work accomplished by a process; (7) multi-
plicity, the multiple explanations that combine to
effect and cause natural phenomena; (8) singularity,
the natural variability among similar phenomena; (9)
sensitivity, the susceptibility of a system to change;
and (10) complexity, the complex response of a system
due to altered conditions. Such problems merit con-
sideration when a stream classification is used for
purposes beyond description and communication.
Several regional stream classifications are routine-
ly used in the United States. The Rosgen stream clas-
sification (Rosgen, 1996) has been widely adopted by
ecologists and managers in federal, state, and local
government agencies as a method for the physical
classification of stream reaches, for the identification
of physically unstable stream reaches, and for guiding
restoration or rehabilitation plans. Typically, it is
used to design stable channels and help restore
streams to more “natural” conditions (assumed to be
the same as stable conditions in some cases), which
for much of the United States commonly have been
equated to channel conditions just prior to European
settlement in the mid-1800s. During this time period
in the Midwestern United States, stream channels
may or may not have been stable because of responses
to climatic variations during and following the Little
Ice Age (Knighton, 1998), disturbance by American
Indians, and (or) loss of beaver activity and woody
debris associated with extensive trapping in the late
1600s and throughout the 1700s (Thwaites, 1895).
In this paper, the Rosgen Level II stream classifica-
tion (hereafter referred to as Level II for brevity) is
evaluated for its usefulness in assessing stream sta-
bility, inferring geomorphic processes, predicting
future geomorphic response, and guiding restoration
or rehabilitation activities across a range of physical
environments. The Rosgen classification was selected
because it is the best known and presently the most
widely used stream classification in the United
States. Also, there is some concern regarding the
inappropriate use of the Rosgen classification for
evaluating channel stability and identifying and
predicting geomorphic processes (Gillilan, 1996;
Miller and Ritter, 1996; Doyle and Harbor, 2000;
Miller and Skidmore, 2001). Limitations of Level II,
660 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF STREAM CLASSIFICATION

and management implications of its use, are present- Proper placement of bankfull elevation is critical for
ed. A field example illustrating some of the limita- determining entrenchment ratio and width/depth
tions and management implications also is presented. ratio, which are required for identifying the stream
type (Rosgen, 1996).

THE ROSGEN CLASSIFICATION

Originally developed in the 1980s (Rosgen, 1985)
and subsequently modified (Rosgen, 1994, 1996), the
Rosgen classification is a hierarchical methodology
that consists of four levels of increasing specificity.
Level I provides a broad geomorphic characterization
of stream types. At Level I, a stream is initially iden-
tified as either a single thread or multiple thread
channel. Then, using entrenchment ratio, width/depth
ratio, sinuosity, and gradient as the classification cri-
teria, eight stream types are distinguished (Table 1).
At Level II, dominant channel bed material (i.e.,
bedrock, boulder, cobble, gravel, sand, or silt/clay) is
used as an additional classification criterion to distin-
guish 41 stream types. At Level III, the current condi-
tion of the stream is characterized according to
stability, potential, and function. At Level IV, verifica-
tion of the predicted stream condition is achieved
through analyses of streamflow, sediment load, and
more detailed geomorphic studies (Rosgen, 1996).
The classification criteria used by Rosgen were
selected because they are readily measurable and rep-
resent the interaction of eight variables that Leopold
et al. (1964) stated control stream morphology –
width, depth, velocity, discharge, channel gradient,
roughness of channel materials, sediment load, and
sediment size (Rosgen, 1994). A change in one or more
of these variables results in adjustments of channel
morphology over time (Schumm, 1977). An important
variable used in the Rosgen classification is the eleva-
tion of the bankfull discharge, which is used to define
the limits for the channel cross section morphology.
LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF
USING THE ROSGEN CLASSIFICATION
The Rosgen classification has been used by several
land management agencies, including the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation
Service, and various state and county agencies. Appli-
cations using the Rosgen classification have included
stream condition assessment and monitoring, the
assessment of grazing impacts to streams, aquatic
habitat assessment, and stream restoration or reha-
bilitation (Myers and Swanson, 1992; Harrelson et
al., 1994; Rosgen, 1996; Clinton et al., 1999).
In the following two sections, use of Level II will be
discussed in terms of limitations and management
implications. A conceptual framework for the discus-
sion is presented in Figure 1. In general, the classifi-
cation of a stream reach implies specific geomorphic
processes and conditions, which in turn may imply
geomorphic response (e.g., response to disturbance).
This derived information then may be used, appropri-
ately or not, as a basis for management decisions.
Limitations
Several types of limitations are inherent when
Level II is used for purposes beyond description
and communication. The limitations, which are relat-
ed to spatial and temporal differences in geomorphic

TABLE 1. Description of Level I Stream Types in the Rosgen Stream Classification (Source: Rosgen, 1996).

Stream Channel Width/Depth

Type Entrenchment Form Ratio Sinuosity Gradient

A Entrenched Step/Pool Low Low Steep

B Moderate Riffle Dominated Moderate Moderate Moderate
C Slight Pool/Riffle Moderate to High Moderate to High Low
D Little, if any Braided Very High Very Low Low
DA Slight Anastomosed Highly Variable Highly Variable Low
E Slight Pool/Riffle Low High Low
F Entrenched Pool/Riffle Moderate to High Moderate Low
G Entrenched Step/Pool (gullies) Low Moderate Moderate

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 661 JAWRA

 JURACEK AND FITZPATRICK
processes, include the following: (1) time dependence,
(2) uncertain applicability across physical environ-
ments, (3) difficulty in identification of a true equilib-
rium condition, (4) potential for incorrect
determination of bankfull elevation, and (5) uncertain
process significance of classification criteria. Each of
these limitations is discussed below.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for Discussion of
Limitations and Management Implications of
Using the Rosgen Level II Stream Classification.
Time dependence refers to the fact that using Level
II to characterize a stream reach may produce differ-
ent results depending on when the reach was classi-
fied. This is a limitation because such classification
does not allow for natural variability in channel form
over time. An example of temporal variability in
stream type is provided by the Cimarron River in
semiarid southwestern Kansas as described by
Schumm and Lichty (1963). From 1874 to 1914, the
Cimarron River at this location was characterized by
a narrow and relatively stable channel that mean-
dered across a well vegetated, sandy floodplain. The
channel width averaged about 50 feet (Schumm and
Lichty, 1963). During this time the Cimarron River
would have been classified as an E5 stream (narrow,
sinuous, low width/depth ratio, sand dominated,
stable channel). However, beginning with a major
flood in 1914 and continuing until 1942, the Cimarron
River channel widened until virtually the entire flood-
plain was destroyed. In 1939, the average channel
width was 1,200 feet (Schumm and Lichty, 1963).
During this time the Cimarron River would have been
classified as a D5 stream (braided, abundant sedi-
ment supply, high bank erosion rates, excessive
JAWRA
deposition, annual shifts of channel bed locations).
Additional examples of temporal variability in stream
type due to large floods include Burkham (1972),
Costa (1974), Kochel et al. (1987), and Osterkamp and
Costa (1987).
Time dependence also is a limitation because the
interpretation of geomorphic processes may be affect-
ed. Because Level II is based on a “snapshot” of pre-
sent conditions with no historical perspective, a user
would need to make an assumption that the current
classification (i.e., stream type) correctly reflects the
historical geomorphic processes that are responsible
for present-day channel form. For example, a designa-
tion of D5 in Level II indicates a braided stream with
a channel bed consisting predominantly of sand sized
materials and characterized by an abundant sediment
supply, high bank erosion rates, excessive deposition
of material, and annual shifts of channel bed locations
(Rosgen, 1996). Using Level II, these conditions would
imply an unstable, aggrading condition. However,
some braided channels exist as dynamically stable
forms (e.g., Leopold and Wolman, 1957). Also, Ger-
manoski and Schumm (1993) have shown that braid-
ed channels can be associated with aggrading,
degrading, or equilibrium conditions. Thus, accep-
tance of the D5 stream type as defined in Level II
may imply an aggrading condition when, based on
historical analysis, the channel is actually degrading
or in equilibrium.
Given the time dependence of Level II, it is uncer-
tain how the meaningfulness and stability of a given
stream type can be interpreted. An alternative
approach is to accommodate temporal variability in
channel form. For example, Naiman et al. (1992), cit-
ing Warren (1979), proposed a classification strategy
that is based on the potential of a stream (i.e., all pos-
sible developmental states and performances that
a system may exhibit while still maintaining its
integrity as a coherent unit) rather than its current
condition. Such an approach would also assist in dis-
tinguishing natural variability from human distur-
bance (Naiman et al., 1992). Historical studies to
document previous channel conditions would be
required to help determine the potential of a particu-
lar stream.
Level II is based on the assumption that classifica-
tion of a stream reach as a certain type has the same
meaning across different physical environments. This
is not an appropriate assumption for all stream types.
For example, it is not reasonable to assume that geo-
morphic processes affect channel form similarly
across different climates. An illustration is the C5
stream type (slightly entrenched, meandering, sand
dominated channel with a well developed floodplain)
(Rosgen, 1996). It is unlikely that the response of a C5
stream to changing conditions would be the same in a
662 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF STREAM CLASSIFICATION
well vegetated humid environment as in a sparsely
vegetated semiarid to arid environment. Case in
point, the effects of a major flood and the channel’s
subsequent rate of recovery have been shown to be
dependent on the environment in which the changes
occur (Wolman and Gerson, 1978; Kochel, 1988).
Because it is not appropriate to assume that Level
II has the same meaning for all stream types across
different physical environments, it is reasonable to
conclude that the classification might be improved by
regionalization. To be effective, a regionalized classifi-
cation would need to be based on the fundamental
controlling variables that affect channel forms and
processes. One such regionalization was developed by
Brussock et al. (1985) in which three physical factors
(relief, lithology, and runoff) were used to delineate
seven distinct stream regions for the coterminous
United States.
The idea that an equilibrium condition exists to
which a stream can be restored is a limitation because
the presumed equilibrium condition may be a tran-
sient state of recovery. Thus, it is conceivable that in
an attempt to restore or rehabilitate a stream reach,
the result may be that one transient state is replaced
with another transient state. Strictly defined, true
equilibrium in stream channels occurs rarely if at all.
Dynamic equilibrium, in which a channel continuous-
ly changes about an average condition, is more realis-
tic. However, even using the dynamic definition, it
cannot be known with certainty if the “stable” reach
in question is in or out of equilibrium at the time of
classification. Macklin and Lewin (1997) recommend-
ed that instability be assumed, at least until it can be
demonstrated otherwise.
The reliance of Level II on determination of bank-
full elevation, the single most important measure-
ment for Level II (Rosgen, 1996), is a limitation
because the ability to accurately identify it in the field
can be problematic in some geomorphic and climatic
settings. Different stream types may be identified
depending on the bankfull elevation selected (Johnson
and Heil, 1996). Bankfull elevation can be difficult to
define in braided channels and misleading in incising
or widening channels (Ferguson, 1987; Johnson and
Heil, 1996). The determination of bankfull elevation
also is difficult for reaches without a floodplain. More-
over, biological indicators of bankfull elevation may
vary with region and climate and may be indicative of
inundation frequency rather than geomorphic pro-
cesses (Tim Diehl, U.S. Geological Survey, written
communication, 1999).
Bankfull flow in the Rosgen classification is consid-
ered to be similar to effective, dominant, and channel-
forming flows with a recurrence interval of about one
to two years (Rosgen, 1996, 1998) and is based on the
concept for humid regions that most geomorphic work
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
is done by relatively frequent floods of moderate
intensity (Wolman and Miller, 1960). However, this
concept is not applicable to all climatic and physio-
graphic settings in the United States. In arid and
semiarid environments, more geomorphic work may
be accomplished by large, infrequent floods (Baker,
1977; Wolman and Gerson, 1978). Moreover, the role
of large, infrequent floods in producing geomorphic
responses and controlling channel form ultimately is
governed by channel resistance to erosion (vegetation
and alluvial versus bedrock substrate and bank mate-
rials), flood energy, peak stream power per unit area,
and flood duration (Baker and Costa, 1987; Kochel,
1988; Baker, 1988; Costa and O'Connor, 1995). The
concept of using bankfull elevation to design channel
geometry in arid and semiarid regions generally is not
applicable (FISRWG, 1998).
In Level II, specific values for four classification
criteria (entrenchment ratio, width/depth ratio, sinu-
osity, and gradient), along with dominant channel bed
material, are used as a basis for distinguishing
stream types. If the classification is used for such pur-
poses as assessing channel stability and predicting
future geomorphic response, the criteria values
should be based on geomorphic processes. However, in
the case of Level II, the significance of the criteria
values to geomorphic processes is uncertain. Miller
and Ritter (1996) did not find process significance for
any of the criteria values used in Level II. A detailed
analysis of the process significance of the criteria val-
ues is beyond the scope of this paper. The point in
mentioning it here is to inform potential users of the
Rosgen classification that the distinction between
stream types may be somewhat arbitrary from the
process perspective.
The limitations of Level II for inferring geomorphic
processes are illustrated in the following example of
North Fish Creek (drainage area of 37 mi2), a tribu-
tary to Lake Superior in Wisconsin. The U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey (USGS) conducted a historical geomorphic
study of the spatial and temporal changes of the creek
following clear cut logging and agricultural activity
related to European settlement of the region in the
late 1800s (F. A. Fitzpatrick, 1998, unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Fitz-
patrick et al., 1999; Fitzpatrick and Knox, 2000). His-
torical changes in geomorphic conditions along the
16-mile main stem were quantified by use of a variety
of interdisciplinary techniques including surveys of
valley cross sections, analysis of floodplain and ter-
race stratigraphy through collection of cores, analysis
of buried soils, interpretation of historical aerial pho-
tographs, analysis of 1855 Government Land Office
Surveys, collection of streamflow and suspended and
bed sediment data, generation of empirical sediment-
transport curves, modeling of runoff and sediment
663 JAWRA
 JURACEK AND FITZPATRICK
loads under different historical land use scenarios,
and compilation of historical sediment budgets
along different parts of the main stem (see F. A. Fitz-
patrick, 1998, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of Wisconsin-Madison, for detailed description
of these techniques; summary of results provided in
Fitzpatrick et al., 1999, and Fitzpatrick and Knox,
2000). Channel cross section, sinuosity, gradient, and
substrate data were compiled for 14 reaches along the
main stem of North Fish Creek and characterized by
use of Level II (Table 2). Bankfull elevation was deter-
mined in the field during channel cross section sur-
veys and was based on a combination of physical
indicators including: (1) elevation associated with the
top of point bars; (2) breaks in slope of the banks
above the low flow water’s edge (with consideration of
possible slope breaks from ice damage); (3) changes in
vegetational patterns (usually herbaceous to woody
species); and (4) the top of the undercut in grassy
banks (used as a minimum indicator of bankfull ele-
vation) (Fitzpatrick et al., 1998). Bankfull discharge
was estimated for each of the reaches and compared
to flood recurrence intervals based on data from a
USGS streamflow gaging station. Table 2 contains a
description of geomorphic processes associated with
each of the Level II stream types in comparison to a
summary of geomorphic processes as determined
through the detailed historical geomorphic study.
The historical geomorphic study of North Fish
Creek indicated that the main stem of the stream
could be divided into three geomorphically distinct
reaches from about stream mile 0 to 6, 6 to 9, and 9 to
16 (Table 2) (F. A. Fitzpatrick, 1998, unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison).
These three reaches were classified as three different
stream types according to Level II (Table 2). Geomor-
phic conditions along the upstream reach (stream
miles 9 to 16) were characterized by active channel
incision and avulsion. The valley is narrow through
this reach, and the creek intersects 17 large bluffs.
Bluff erosion historically accounted for 79 percent of
the total sediment load measured in this reach. Chan-
nel erosion accounted for 16 percent of the total
sediment load (the channel bed is actively incising)
and only 5 percent resulted from upland erosion (Fitz-
patrick et al., 1999). Bank erosion was minimal
because banks are composed mainly of cobble or grav-
el. This reach was classified as a B3 to B5 stream type
(Table 2). B3 to B5 stream types are inferred to be rel-
atively stable, with little channel bank or bed erosion,
mainly because the channel is not overly entrenched
and bank and bed materials are coarse. Thus, Level II
was inadequate for inferring the major geomorphic
processes at work in this reach. It did not identify the
major source of sediment to downstream reaches
JAWRA
because the bluffs extend above the immediate bank-
full channel area. Also, it was inadequate for identify-
ing bed degradation in this reach most likely because
the entrenchment ratios were moderate and substrate
materials were coarse.
For the middle reach of North Fish Creek (stream
miles 6 to 9), Level II and the historical geomorphic
study showed similar interpretations of current geo-
morphic processes (Table 2). However, Level II was
not adequate for determining the major source of sedi-
ment to the reach. This shortcoming illustrates the
importance of understanding geomorphic processes at
the basin scale and over longer time periods. The his-
torical geomorphic study identified the middle reach
as very unstable with geomorphic conditions switch-
ing from accelerated channel and floodplain aggrada-
tion following European settlement and land clearing
to accelerated channel degradation following
improved basin land use practices in the last half of
the 20th century. The reach was classified as an F5
stream type, which is inferred to have moderate to
abundant sediment supply with high bank erosion
rates and depositional features commonly present.
The banks are indeed unstable, and the channel is
actively degrading; however, the sediment supplied
from the channel banks and bed through this reach is
only 15 percent of that contributed from the bluffs
and the channel in the upstream reach (F. A. Fitz-
patrick, 1998, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of Wisconsin-Madison). The historical
geomorphic study indicated that geomorphic condi-
tions and processes change in the middle reach
between aggradational and degradational processes
depending on changes in upstream inputs of water
and sediment. Thus, the historical geomorphic study
provided insight to the source for the majority of the
sediment (upstream of the reach and outside of the
bankfull area) and the causes of temporal variability
(i.e., changes in land use practices) that could not be
obtained from Level II.
Lastly, both the historical geomorphic study and
Level II indicated somewhat similar geomorphic pro-
cesses for the downstream reach of North Fish Creek
(stream miles 0 to 6). However, Level II could not
indicate whether the processes were natural, human-
influenced, or accelerated beyond natural rates. Also,
Level II could not indicate the source of the sediment.
The historical geomorphic study indicated that a dom-
inant geomorphic process in this reach has been
channel and floodplain aggradation for the past 5,000
years or more, but following European settlement and
land clearing, aggradation rates accelerated because
of elevated upstream erosion rates (F. A. Fitzpatrick,
1998, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Wisconsin-Madison; Fitzpatrick et al., 1999). Banks
664 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 TABLE 2. Channel Characteristics and Comparison of Geomorphic Processes Inferred From Rosgen Level II Classification and Determined
From Historical Geomorphic Study of North Fish Creek, Wisconsin [D, stream distance upstream from mouth (in miles);
E, entrenchment ratio; W/D, bankfull width/depth ratio; S, sinuosity; G, gradient; >, greater than; <, less than].

Level II Geomorphic Processes

Dominant Stream Geomorphic Processes Inferred Interpreted From Historical
D E W/D S G Substrate Type1,2 From Rosgen Level II Classification3 Geomorphic Study4

15.8 1.7 11 1.7 0.005 Cobble/Boulder B3c Bed and bank materials stable and Active incision and lateral channel
contribute small quantities of sediment migration following European
during runoff. settlement and throughout last 120
years. Avulsions common. Bluff and
bed erosion contribute 95 percent of
sediment to downstream reaches.

15.2 1.6 9 1.2 .007 Cobble B3c Same as above. Same as above.

14.2 1.5 24 1.3 .003 Cobble B3c Same as above. Same as above.

12.2 1.8 12 1.4 .003 Sand/Gravel B4c/B5c Channel considered relatively stable and Same as above.
not an abundant sediment supply channel.

11.9 1.7 12 1.4 .003 Boulder/Sand B3c Bed and bank materials stable and Same as above.
contribute small quantities of sediment

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

during runoff.

10.6 >1.33 14 1.3 .004 Sand/Gravel B4c/B5c Channel considered relatively stable and Same as above.
not an abundant sediment supply channel.

665
9.1 1 13 1.2 .003 Sand/Gravel F5/F4 Entrenched, sediment supply moderate/ Very unstable in 1990s. Following
abundant, depositional features common, deforestation, channel and flood plain
bank erosion high. aggraded but changed to erosional as
sediment supply from upstream
decreased following reforestation.

7.7 1.1 14 1.5 .003 Sand/Gravel F5 Sediment supply moderate/abundant, Same as above.
depositional features common.

7.5 1.3 15 1.5 .001 Sand F5 Same as above. Same as above.

LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF STREAM CLASSIFICATION

5.7 >2.2 11 1.7 .001 Sand E5 Very stable, hydraulically efficient channel. Accelerated channel and flood plain
aggradation following European
settlement throughout past 120 years.

4.1 >2.2 24 1.3 <.001 Sand C5/C5c- Depositional, active lateral migration, Same as above.
sediment supply abundant, susceptible to
shifts laterally and vertically.

3.2 >2.2 16 1.3 .001 Sand C5 Same as above. Same as above.

2.6 >2.2 16 1.3 .001 Sand C5 Same as above. Same as above.

2.2 >2.2 21 1.3 .001 Sand C5 Same as above. Same as above.

1B stream types with a “c” added to the end refers to a reach with a gradient less than 0.02.
2C stream types with a “c-” added to the end refers to a reach with a gradient less than 0.001.
3Rosgen, 1994.

JAWRA
4F. A. Fitzpatrick, 1998, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation; Fitzpatrick et al., 1999; and Fitzpatrick and Knox, 2000.
 JURACEK AND FITZPATRICK
are stable depositional features, although avulsion is
common as breaches in natural levees occur. Most of
the downstream reach was classified as a C5 stream
type, with inferred geomorphic processes dominated
by deposition and active lateral migration with abun-
dant sediment supply. The upstream part of the
downstream reach at about stream mile 6 was classi-
fied as an E5 stream type, even though the dominant
geomorphic process is aggradation.
The North Fish Creek example illustrates that the
local scale (channel only) of Level II limits its useful-
ness for identifying the effects of basin and valley
related geomorphic processes occurring on a broader
scale. Inclusion of such processes would add another
dimension of understanding. Rosgen (1996) generally
discusses the relations among valley forms, land-
forms, and Level I stream types for streams in the
mountainous areas of the Western United States. For
North Fish Creek, it is difficult to fit a Level I stream
type to a valley because it appears to be a combina-
tion of valley Types V and VI. Valley Type V is
described as a glacially formed U-shaped valley with
an unspecified sediment supply. Valley Type VI is
described as a fault line valley with low sediment sup-
ply (Rosgen, 1996). It is concluded that the process
relations among the valley and stream types for
North Fish Creek and possibly many other Midwest
streams in glacially derived landscapes are incom-
plete in the Rosgen classification. In contrast, a geo-
morphic assessment used by managers in the United
Kingdom (Thorne, 1998) includes a specific descrip-
tion of the process relations between a channel and its
valley. For the North Fish Creek study, Thorne’s
assessment would have identified eroding bluffs as a
major source of sediment.
Management Implications
If complete and properly applied, a stream classifi-
cation offers the potential to improve management
decision making. For example, Sear et al. (1995) state
that a classification can assist in river maintenance
by providing a comparative basis for evaluating prob-
lems and remedial options. According to Gordon et al.
(1992), classification is essential in the designation of
sites for habitat preservation and (or) stream rehabili-
tation. If a stream reach is properly classified, it may
be assumed that similar reaches will respond in com-
parable ways to similar management practices, thus
permitting the transfer of successful practices from
one area to another (Gordon et al., 1992). Classifica-
tion also may be useful for the purposes of prioritizing
and planning restoration activities (Kondolf, 1995).
JAWRA
However, if incomplete and (or) improperly applied,
the use of a stream classification may become prob-
lematic, resulting in inappropriate action or no action
when action is needed. An example is provided by a
1994 stream restoration project in the northern Sierra
Nevada as excerpted from Kondolf (1995, p. 137):
“Pool habitat is limited in this stream, and
increasingly pool habitat was an objective of this
restoration effort. However, the proposed design
called for filling of a large, linear pool (scoured in
a gravel-clay unit) that had persisted in the
channel for many years and had supported large
fish. This natural pool was one of few pools exist-
ing in the reach for which restoration was pro-
posed. When questioned why he did not propose
to retain this pool in his design, the designer (a
nongeomorphologist with five days of training in
geomorphology) stated that this pool did not
belong in a ‘B stream type.’”
Fundamental to the understanding and manage-
ment of fluvial systems is a thorough knowledge of
stability, or equilibrium. Whether or not a channel is
perceived to be stable will have implications for the
understanding of geomorphic processes and condi-
tions and, consequently, for the management deci-
sions that follow (Figure 1). The classification of a
stream reach as a stable stream type is potentially
misleading because the reach may only appear to be
stable due to a lack of recent disturbance. In fact, per-
ceived stability in actuality may be a transient state
of recovery from a major flood with the present chan-
nel characteristics dependent on the time elapsed
since the flood (Ferguson, 1987). The definition of sta-
bility is dependent on the stream type and time frame
being considered. For example, whereas bedrock
channels may remain essentially unchanged for long
periods of time (e.g., centuries), alluvial channels can
change on a daily basis. Thus, whereas a static defini-
tion of stability is acceptable for the former, a dynam-
ic definition of stability is more appropriate for the
latter.
Rosgen’s approach to stream rehabilitation is to
use stable reaches as “blueprints” or reference reach-
es for modifying unstable reaches (Rosgen, 1998).
Rosgen defines a stable reach as one that develops a
stable dimension, pattern, and profile such that, over
time (in the present climate), channel features are
maintained and the stream system neither aggrades
nor degrades (Rosgen, 1996, 1998). Basically, the
rehabilitation approach is one of altering the dimen-
sions, pattern, and profile of the unstable reach to
match the stable reach (Rosgen, 1996, 1998). Use of
Level II to describe the blueprint stable reaches
666 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF STREAM CLASSIFICATION
implies that the classified stable reaches will remain
stable under a normal range of conditions. By exten-
sion, it implies that unstable reaches altered to emu-
late the stable reaches also will remain stable under
normal conditions.
The classification of a reach as a stable stream type
is potentially misleading not only because the stable
reach may be in a transient state of recovery but also
because it provides no hint of the channel’s potential
response to extreme conditions (e.g., floods). The
uncertainty and risk are transferred to other locations
as “unstable” reaches are modified to match the char-
acteristics of the “stable” reaches. If a stream
classification is to be used as a basis for management
decisions, the classification needs to provide some
indication of how the channel will respond to extreme
conditions. Otherwise, implemented rehabilitation
plans may not be successful.
An example of the importance of accounting for
extreme conditions in a stream rehabilitation plan is
Wildcat Creek in Richmond, California. Wildcat
Creek, which flows through a public park, was subject
to historical incision. Park managers needed a plan
that would prevent incision, allow fish passage, and
be aesthetically compatible with the park setting.
Such a plan was implemented in 1992 and included
minor channel reshaping, construction of large boul-
der check dams, and emplacement of bank protection
composed of a combination of logs and large boulders
(D. L. Rosgen, 1992, unpublished report entitled
“Stream Restoration Plan for Wildcat Creek,” pre-
pared for the East Bay Regional Park District, Wild-
land Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado). Initially
thought to be a successful example of biotechnical sta-
bilization, the rehabilitated reach sustained extensive
damage during high flows in 1995 and 1997. Park
managers subsequently stated that the stream reha-
bilitation had failed. Cited among the reasons for fail-
ure were an overemphasis on bankfull (1.5-years to
2-years) flow, a significant underestimation of the
100-year flood, and inadequate consideration of the
effects of large flows in the design of the plan (Shields
et al., 1999).
Another example, offered by Gillilan (1996), ques-
tions restoring channels to pristine, presumably sta-
ble, conditions. In this case, an entire basin
experiencing pronounced instability was character-
ized using the Rosgen classification. Pristine channel
conditions, derived from 60-year-old aerial pho-
tographs, were compared to existing channel condi-
tions and found to be in a different classification. The
apparent objective of the restoration plan was to re-
create a channel with characteristics similar to those
of the pristine channel. Such an approach initially
sounded reasonable. However, substantial changes in
base level, land use, sediment supply, hydrologic
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
regime, and vegetative condition indicated a signifi-
cant departure from the previous pristine conditions.
With such substantial basinwide change, it may not
be reasonable to assume that an unstable channel can
be stabilized by imposing previous channel character-
istics (Gillilan, 1996).
An alternative to active rehabilitation of a stream
is to do nothing. A decision to take no action results
from several reasons, including: (1) a lack of apprecia-
tion for the consequences of no action, (2) a lack of
understanding of the appropriate action to take, and
(3) a lack of resources to take action. Given enough
time, geomorphic processes will restore a disturbed
stream channel to some state of dynamic equilibrium,
and biological communities will develop that are
adapted to the resultant physical conditions. Howev-
er, natural recovery may result in the destruction of
riparian lands and structures, cause adverse effects
downstream, and require a century or more to com-
plete (Shields et al., 1999). An important question is
whether the post-recovery riparian and aquatic habi-
tat, and associated species, will be acceptable to water
resource managers, aquatic ecologists, and the public.
Another important management consideration is
that the form based classification of a stream reach
does not equate to a sufficient geomorphic under-
standing for predicting, and planning for, future
changes in the system. In general, the current state of
understanding of geomorphic processes is not suffi-
cient to enable such predictions. Miller and Ritter
(1996), citing several papers, noted that a given reach
may respond differently, at different times, to an
event of similar magnitude. Richards and Lane (1997)
concluded that there are significant variations in the
uncertainty associated with the prediction of morpho-
logical change in different environments. Schumm
(1991) identified 10 problems (presented earlier) asso-
ciated with the use of present conditions to predict
future conditions. Thus, a more realistic option may
be to predict the variety of possible geomorphic
responses.
Additional precautionary statements regarding the
use of form based classification for decision making
purposes have been offered by several researchers.
Case in point, Rosgen (1996) cautioned that the desig-
nation of a reach as type D (braided channel) does not
automatically indicate that the reach is in need of
rehabilitation. As noted by Gillilan (1996), the classi-
fication of a disturbed channel does not indicate what
the channel is changing to or what it should be if
restored. Further, Kondolf (1995) asserted that effec-
tive restoration requires an understanding of the
underlying cause of instability, which may not be
apparent from the existing channel appearance alone.
In addition, channel change (sometimes mistaken for
instability) is inherent to natural streams and is
667 JAWRA
 JURACEK AND FITZPATRICK
important for providing habitat. For example, channel
movement is necessary for the propagation and regen-
eration of many native riparian plants and for the
diverse instream conditions favored by many native
fish (Auble et al., 1997).
For such purposes as the assessment of stream sta-
bility and the prediction of future geomorphic
response, Levels III and IV of the Rosgen classifica-
tion are better suited. However, Level II also is used
for such purposes. For example, Rosgen (1996) used
Level II stream types as a basis for predicting sensi-
tivity to disturbance, recovery potential, sediment
supply, and streambank erosion potential. Most of the
descriptions of Level II stream types provided in Ros-
gen (1996) include a statement of stability. Other
examples, expressed or implied, in which Level II was
used for predictive purposes and (or) to infer geomor-
phic processes include Savery et al. (2001) and
Epstein (2002). Based on discussions with colleagues
and other professionals, it is evident that the use of
Level II for purposes beyond description and commu-
nication is more common than indicated by the pub-
lished literature.
Stream classifications based on channel form rep-
resent a generalization of an incomplete understand-
ing of the relations between geomorphic processes and
forms. The implications of using stream classifica-
tions such as Rosgen’s are as follows: (1) the user
accepts the limitations upon which the stream classi-
fication is based; (2) the user accepts the risk of classi-
fying a stream incorrectly; and (3) classification
results may be used inappropriately.
RESEARCH NEEDS
Toward providing a more complete understanding
of the limitations of Level II as a tool to assess stream
stability, infer geomorphic processes, predict future
geomorphic response, and guide stream restoration or
rehabilitation activities, the following research ques-
tions are offered:
1. How do stream reaches of the same type, but in
different physical environments, respond to similar
natural or human caused changes?
2. Could Level II be improved by regionalization?
On what basis would regions be established, and how
would the success of regionalization be measured?
3. Over what temporal scales is Level II meaning-
ful?
4. What is the process significance of the classifica-
tion criteria used to distinguish stream types?
5. Is the applicability of Level II affected by stream
size? If so, how?
JAWRA
CONCLUSIONS
The Rosgen Level II classification is a useful tool
that provides a means of description and communica-
tion for individuals involved in stream research and
management. However, if used for purposes beyond
description and communication, misapplication may
result. A widely applicable, form based classification
has not yet been developed for assessing stream sta-
bility, inferring geomorphic processes, and predicting
future geomorphic response across a wide range of cli-
matic settings and physiographic regions. Thus, it is
essential that prior to application, the limitations of
the Level II classification be fully understood and
appreciated.
The Level II classification has several limitations
that may be characterized as spatial and temporal
geomorphic uncertainties with regard to the applica-
bility of the classification within and across different
physical environments. Given the limitations, it is
concluded that the use of the Level II classification for
purposes beyond description and communication is
not appropriate. Additional research may address the
limitations, with the result being improvements to
the classification.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper has benefited from the thorough, critical reviews and
insightful suggestions from James Knox (University of Wisconsin-
Madison), Waite Osterkamp (U.S. Geological Survey), Kirk Vincent
(U.S. Geological Survey), and Herb Garn (U.S. Geological Survey)
prior to journal submission. The authors also thank the three
anonymous reviewers for their many helpful comments and sugges-
tions.
LITERATURE CITED
Auble, G. T., M. L. Scott, J. M. Friedman, J. Back, and V. J. Lee,
1997. Constraints on Establishment of Plains Cottonwood in an
Urban Riparian Preserve. Wetlands 17(1):138-148.
Baker, V. R., 1977. Stream-Channel Response to Floods, With
Examples From Central Texas. Geological Society of America
Bulletin 88:1057-1071.
Baker, V. R., 1988. Flood Erosion. In: Flood Geomorphology, V. R.
Baker, R. C. Kochel, and P. C. Patton (Editors). John Wiley and
Sons, New York, New York, pp. 81-95.
Baker, V. R. and J. E. Costa, 1987. Flood Power. In: Catastrophic
Flooding, L. Mayer and E. Nash (Editors). Allen and Unwin,
Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 1-21.
Brussock, P. P., A. V. Brown, and J. C. Dixon, 1985. Channel Form
and Stream Ecosystem Models. Water Resources Bulletin
21:859-866.
Burkham, D. E., 1972. Channel Changes of the Gila River in Saf-
ford Valley, Arizona, 1846-1970. U.S. Geological Survey Profes-
sional Paper 655-G.
668 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF STREAM CLASSIFICATION
Clinton, D., G. Jennings, W. Harman, J. Patterson, L. O' Hara, and
J. Williams, 1999. North Carolina Reference Stream Channel
Morphology Relationships. In: Wildland Hydrology, Darren S
Olsen and John P. Potyondy (Editors). American Water
Resources Association, Middleburg, Virginia, pp. 393-400.
Costa, J. E., 1974. Response and Recovery of a Piedmont Watershed
From Tropical Storm Agnes, June 1972. Water Resources
Research 10:106-112.
Costa, J. E. and J. E. O'Connor, 1995. Geomorphically Effective
Floods. Natural and Anthropogenic Influences in Fluvial Geo-
morphology. Geophysical Monograph 89:45-56.
Davis, W. M., 1890. The Rivers of Northern New Jersey, With Note
on the Classification of Rivers in General. National Geographic
Magazine 2:82-110.
Davis, W. M., 1899. The Geographical Cycle. Geographical Journal
14:481-504.
Downs, P. W., 1995. River Channel Classification for Channel Man-
agement Purposes. In: Changing River Channels, Angela Gur-
nell and Geoffrey Petts (Editors). John Wiley and Sons, New
York, New York, pp. 347-365.
Doyle, M. W. and J. M. Harbor, 2000. Discussion. “Evaluation of
Rosgen’s Streambank Erosion Potential Assessment in North-
east Oklahoma,” by R. D. Harmel, C. T. Haan, and R. C. Dut-
nell. Journal of the American Water Resources Association
36(5):1191-1192.
Epstein, C. M., 2002. Application of Rosgen Analysis to the New
Jersey Pine Barrens. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 38(1):69-78.
FISRWG (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working
Group), 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Process-
es, and Practices. National Engineering Handbook, NEH 653.
Ferguson, Rob, 1987. Hydraulic and Sedimentary Controls of Chan-
nel Pattern. In: River Channels, Environment and Process,
Keith Richards (Editor). Basil Blackwell, New York, New York,
pp. 129-158.
Fitzpatrick, F. A. and J. C. Knox, 2000. Spatial and Temporal Sen-
sitivity of Hydrogeomorphic Response and Recovery to Defor-
estation, Agriculture, and Floods. Physical Geography
21(2):89-108.
Fitzpatrick, F. A., J. C. Knox, and H. E. Whitman, 1999. Effects of
Historical Land-Cover Changes on Flooding and Sedimentation,
North Fish Creek, Wisconsin. U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 99-4083.
Fitzpatrick, F. A., I. R. Waite, P. J. D'Arconte, M. R. Meador, M. A.
Maupin, and M. E. Gurtz, 1998. Revised Methods for Character-
izing Stream Habitat in the National Water-Quality Assessment
Program. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investiga-
tions Report 98-4052.
Frissell, C. A., W. J. Liss, C. E. Warren, and M. D. Hurley, 1986. A
Hierarchical Framework for Stream Habitat Classification:
Viewing Streams in a Watershed Context. Environmental Man-
agement 10:199-214.
Germanoski, Dru and S. A. Schumm, 1993. Changes in Braided
River Morphology Resulting From Aggradation and Degrada-
tion. Journal of Geology 101:451-466.
Gillilan, S., 1996. Use and Misuse of Channel Classification
Schemes. Stream Notes, October 1996, Stream Systems Tech-
nology Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Available at http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/index.html. Accessed
on August 24, 2001.
Goodwin, C. N., 1999. Fluvial Classification: Neanderthal Necessity
or Needless Normalcy. In: Wildland Hydrology, Darren S Olsen
and John P. Potyondy (Editors). American Water Resources
Association, Middleburg, Virginia, pp. 229-236.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
Gordon, N. D., T. A. McMahon, and B. L. Finlayson, 1992. Stream
Hydrology – An Introduction for Ecologists. John Wiley and
Sons, New York, New York.
Harrelson, C. C., C. L. Rawlins, and J. P. Potyondy, 1994. Stream
Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Tech-
nique. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado,
Forest Service General Technical Report RM-245.
Hawkes, H. A., 1975. River Zonation and Classification. In: River
Ecology, B. A. Whitton (Editor). Blackwell, London, United
Kingdom, pp. 312-374.
Johnson, P. A. and T. M. Heil, 1996. Uncertainty in Estimating
Bankfull Conditions. Water Resources Bulletin 32:1283-1291.
Kellerhals, Rolf, Michael Church, and D. I. Bray, 1976. Classifica-
tion and Analysis of River Processes. Journal of the Hydraulics
Division 102:813-829.
Knighton, David, 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes: A New Per-
spective. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.
Kochel, R. C., 1988. Geomorphic Impacts of Large Floods: Review
and New Perspectives on Magnitude and Frequency. In: Flood
Geomorphology, V. R. Baker, R. C. Kochel, and P. C. Patton (Edi-
tors). John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, pp. 169-187.
Kochel, R. C., D. F. Ritter, and Jerry Miller, 1987. Role of Tree
Dams in the Construction of Pseudo-Terraces and Variable Geo-
morphic Response to Floods in Little River Valley, Virginia.
Geology 15:718-721.
Kondolf, G. M., 1995. Geomorphological Stream Channel Classifica-
tion in Aquatic Habitat Restoration: Uses and Limitations.
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
5:127-141.
Leopold, L. B. and M. G. Wolman, 1957. River Channel Patterns:
Braided, Meandering, and Straight. U.S. Geological Survey Pro-
fessional Paper 282-B.
Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller, 1964. Fluvial Pro-
cesses in Geomorphology. Dover Publications, New York, New
York.
Macklin, M. G., and John Lewin, 1997. Channel, Floodplain and
Drainage Basin Response to Environmental Change. In: Applied
Fluvial Geomorphology for River Engineering and Management,
C. R. Thorne, R. D. Hey, and M. D. Newson (Editors). John
Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, pp. 15-46.
Miller, D. E. and P. B. Skidmore, 2001. Natural Channel Design:
How Does Rosgen Classification-Based Design Compare With
Other Methods? Proceedings of the ASCE Wetlands Engineering
and River Restoration Conference, Reno, Nevada. Ch. 2, Sec. 27.
Miller, J. R. and J. B. Ritter, 1996. An Examination of the Rosgen
Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 27:295-299.
Montgomery, D. R. and J. M. Buffington, 1997. Channel-Reach
Morphology in Mountain Drainage Basins. Bulletin of the Geo-
logical Society of America 109:596-611.
Mosley, M. P., 1987. The Classification and Characterization of
Rivers. In: River Channels, Environment and Process, Keith
Richards (Editor). Basil Blackwell, New York, New York, pp.
295-320.
Myers, T. J. and Sherman Swanson, 1992. Variation of Stream Sta-
bility With Stream Type and Livestock Bank Damage in North-
ern Nevada. Water Resources Bulletin 28:743-754.
Naiman, R. J., D. G. Lonzarich, T. J. Beechie, and S. C. Ralph,
1992. General Principles of Classification and the Assessment of
Conservation Potential in Rivers. In: River Conservation and
Management, P. J. Boon, P. Calow, and G. E. Petts (Editors).
John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, pp. 93-123.
Osterkamp, W. R. and J. E. Costa, 1987. Changes Accompanying an
Extraordinary flood on a Sand-Bed Stream. In: Catastrophic
Flooding, L. Mayer and D. Nash (Editors). Allen and Unwin,
Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 201-223.
669 JAWRA
 JURACEK AND FITZPATRICK

Pennak, R. W., 1978. The Dilemma of Stream Classification. In:

Classification, Inventory and Analysis of Fish and Wildlife
Habitat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C., Bio-
logical Services Program FWS/OBS-78/76, pp. 59-66.
Playfair, John, 1802. Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the
Earth. William Creech, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Powell, J. W., 1875. Exploration of the Colorado River and Its Trib-
utaries. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Richards, K. S. and S. N. Lane, 1997. Prediction of Morphological
Changes in Unstable Channels. In: Applied Fluvial Geomorphol-
ogy for River Engineering and Management, C. R. Thorne, R. D.
Hey, and M. D. Newson (Editors). John Wiley and Sons, New
York, New York, pp. 269-292.
Rosgen, D. L., 1985. A Stream Classification System. In: Riparian
Ecosystems and Their Management. Proceedings of the First
North American Riparian Conference, April 16-18, Tucson, Ari-
zona. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report No. RM-
120, pp. 91-95.
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena
22:169-99.
Rosgen, D. L, 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology,
Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Rosgen, D. L., 1998. The Reference Reach: A Blueprint for Natural
Channel Design. Proceedings of the ASCE Wetlands Engineer-
ing and River Restoration Conference, Denver, Colorado, ASCE,
Reston, Virginia.
Savery, T. S., G. H. Belt, and D. A. Higgins, 2001. Evaluation of the
Rosgen Stream Classification System in Chequamegon-Nicolet
National Forest, Wisconsin. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 37(3):641-654.
Schumm, S. A., 1977. The Fluvial System. John Wiley and Sons,
New York, New York.
Schumm, S. A., 1991. To Interpret the Earth, Ten Ways to be
Wrong. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.
Schumm, S. A. and R. W. Lichty, 1963. Channel Widening and
Flood-Plain Construction along Cimarron River in Southwest-
ern Kansas. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 352-D.
Sear, D. A., M. D. Newson, and A. Brookes, 1995. Sediment-Related
River Maintenance: The Role of Fluvial Geomorphology. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms 20:629-647.
Shields, F. D., Andrew Brookes, and Jeffrey Haltiner, 1999. Geo-
morphological Approaches to Incised Stream Channel Restora-
tion in the United States and Europe. In: Incised River
Channels, S. E. Darby and Andrew Simon (Editors). John Wiley
and Sons, New York, New York, pp. 371-394.
Thorne, C. R., 1997. Channel Types and Morphological Classifica-
tion. In: Applied Fluvial Geomorphology for River Engineering
and Management, C. R. Thorne, R. D. Hey, and M. D. Newson
(Editors). John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, pp. 175-
222.
Thorne, C. R., 1998. Stream Reconnaissance Handbook. John Wiley
and Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom.
Thwaites, R. G., 1895, The Story of Chequamegon Bay. Democrat
Printing Co., Madison, Wisconsin, Collections of the State His-
torical Society of Wisconsin 8:397-440.
Warren, C. E., 1979. Toward Classification and Rationale for Water-
shed Management and Stream Protection. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon, Report No. EPA-600/3-79-
059.
Whiting, P. J. and J. B. Bradley, 1993. A Process-Based Classifica-
tion System for Headwater Streams. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 18:603-612.
Wolman, M. G. and Ran Gerson, 1978. Relative Scales of Time and
Effectiveness of Climate in Watershed Geomorphology. Earth
Surface Processes 3:189-203.
Wolman, M. G. and J. P. Miller, 1960. Magnitude and Frequency of
Forces in Geomorphic Processes. Journal of Geology 68:54-74.

JAWRA 670 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION