Level II Rosgen Field Analysis

Matthew Patterson

United States Geological Survey

Mr. Claude Epstein

3rd December, 2009

 Results

The data collected for this analysis was done at the drainage ditch across from Parking Lot 1 at
the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey in Pomona, NJ. This data will be included in Table
1.1 and includes multiple data points necessary for a Level II Rosgen Analysis. This was used to
compare the downstream morphology to the upstream morphology into the categories described
in the Level II Rosgen Analysis. These are categorized as A, G, F, B, E, C, D, DA, E, F and G.
These letters are assigned based on the landscape around the stream and the particular
morphologies associated with these landscapes. “A” through “D” represent typical streams, with
normal stream morphologies. D indicates multiple channels on the stream. DA and E streams are
streams that have vegetation all the way up the channel that stabilizes the flood plain. F and G
streams are found in very deep valleys that are often found in areas of tectonic activity or in
limestone terrains that are easy to downcut when eroding. The Level II Rosgen Analysis criteria
sheet will also be attached as Table 1.2:

Table 1.1:

Site 1: Downstream Site 2: Upstream

Criterion for bankfull stage: 6 in. above current 10 in. above current
water level water level
No. of Channels: 1 1
Bankfull Width 9.8 ft. 13 ft.
Bankfull Depth (in feet)
1 .5 1
2 .5 1.5
3 .5 2
4 .6 1.9
5 .6 1.5
6 .6 1.5
7 .6 1.4
8 1.2
9 .8
10 .8

Average Bankfull Depth: (in feet) .56 1.36

Maximum Bankfull Depth: (in feet) .60 2.0
Floodprone Width: (in feet) 16.0 100+
Bottom Sediment: Gravelly Sand Muck (Peat)
Width to Depth Ratio: 17.5 9.6
Entrenchment Ratio: 1.6 7.7
Rosgen Stream Type: B5 E7
True Stream Length: (in feet) 60.1 101.5
Upstream Elevation: (in feet) 3.14 3.60
 Downstream Elevation: (in feet) 4.40 3.14
Sinuosity: 1.03 1.01
Slope: .021 .0043

This table shows the data points collected while out in the field. All of these data points are used
to help determine which Rosgen type stream will be assigned to the stream. In this case, the
downstream site was assigned a Rosgen type of B5. Following the attached Rosgen Level II
analysis chart, the B is assigned because it has an entrenchment ratio between 1.4-2.2, a
width/depth ratio greater than 12, sinuosity greater than 1.2 and a slope of .021. The number 5 is
assigned based on the substrate found at the bottom of the stream. Sand is labeled by the number
5. There was more sand than gravel, so gravel, which is labeled as 4 would not be the best
choice. The upstream site is classified as an E7 stream. This is because it, like the downstream
site, falls under the criteria of an “E” type stream on the Rosgen Level II analysis table. It has the
number 7 because muck in the Pine Barrens is primarily composed of Peat moss and that is
classified as a number 7 substrate.
From these numbers the basic morphology of these streams can be described. The downstream
morphology can be described as being moderately entrenched, with floods not spreading far out
of the range of the stream. This can be proven by the lower floodprone width of 16 feet. The
slope is much higher for the downstream site, indicating that there is much more erosion and
downcutting around the drainage wingwall. It should be noted that the downstream site had a
man-made smaller stream that diverts surface runoff water into the downstream section of the
drainage ditch. With this factor, it can also be noted that through the width/depth ratio the surface
runoff changes can be seen because the downstream site had can be classified as wide and
shallow. The substrate was also changed due to the faster flow of water and runoff from the
asphalt and concrete parking lots, which changed the natural mucky peat into sand with gravel.
The upstream site was the more natural site, with a deeper and narrower channel. The bankfull
depth was on average almost three times as deep. Since the entrenchment ratio for the upstream
is much higher than the downstream, it is considered only slightly entrenched. This slight
entrenchment allows for much more drastic flooding, and is represented by a floodprone width of
over 100 feet, much higher than that of the entrenched downstream site. Since there was so much
organic matter in the water and around the stream, it regulates the floodplain. These factors label
the upstream site as a type “E” stream.
Through these results it can be observed that having surface runoff become part of a stream
system can really change the morphology of a stream. With surface runoff, the rate of erosion
and downcutting of a stream increases significantly. This in turn increases the slope of the stream
site, which increases the speed of the water and increases erosion etcetera as the cycle continues.
The substrate of this stream changed as well, since the runoff carried with it the sediment and
materials from the adjacent street. This can throw off the hydraulic conductivity and the flooding
situations. Although the floodprone width is much smaller because of the stream’s entrenched
status, it is more prone to flooding since the width/depth ratio is larger from the erosion and
makes the stream wider and shallower. In this particular case the loss of peat as a substrate,
which helps stabilize the channel in the floodplain, also increases the likelihood of floods, which
occur more frequently but over less area in the downstream “wing-walled” area.