U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5227

Regionalized Equations for Bankfull-Discharge and 

Channel Characteristics of Streams in New York State–

Hydrologic Region 3 East of the Hudson River

Prepared in cooperation with

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

New York State Department of State—Division of Coastal Resources

New York State Department of Transportation

New York City Department of Environmental Protection
Cover. Valatie Kill, June 2006, Rensselaer County, New York.
Regionalized Equations for BankfullDischarge and Channel Characteristics of 

Streams in New York State—Hydrologic 

Region 3 East of the Hudson River

By Christiane I. Mulvihill and Barry P. Baldigo

Prepared in cooperation with 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

New York State Department of State—Division of Coastal Resources

New York State Department of Transportation

New York City Department of Environmental Protection

Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5227

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007

For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Mulvihill, C.I., and Baldigo, B. P., 2007, Regionalized equations for bankfull-discharge and channel characteristics 

of streams in New York State—Hydrologic region 3 east of the Hudson River: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007–5227, 15 p., online only.
iii

Figures

1. Map showing hydrologic regions of New York State: (A) hydrologic-region 

boundaries as defined by Lumia (1991) and (B) locations of the 12 streamflowgaging stations used in 2005–06 stream survey in Region 3 .................................................3

2–5. Graphs showing—

2. Bankfull discharge as a function of drainage area with 95-percent prediction 

limit and 95-percent confidence interval for streams surveyed in Region 3, in 

New York State.....................................................................................................................7

3. Bankfull width, depth, and cross-sectional area as a function of drainage 

area with best-fit lines, regression equations, and R 

2

 values for all streams 

surveyed in Region 3 in New York State ..........................................................................8

4. Selected channel characteristics as a function of drainage area with 

95-percent prediction limits and 95-percent confidence intervals for 

streams in Region 3 in New York State: (A) bankfull channel width, 

(B) bankfull channel depth, and (C) bankfull channel cross-sectional area .............9

5. Bankfull discharge as a function of drainage area for Region 3 and published 

curves for six other regions in New York State ............................................................12

Tables

1. Characteristics of streamflow-gaging stations surveyed in Region 3 of New York, 

2005–06 ...........................................................................................................................................6

2. Stream classification and bankfull-channel characteristics for cross sections at 

the 12 streamflow-gaging stations surveyed in Region 3 in New York State ...................10

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Approach................................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................4

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................4

Site Selection.........................................................................................................................................4

Data Collection......................................................................................................................................4

Data Analysis.........................................................................................................................................5

Regional Equations for Bankfull Discharge and Channel Characteristics of Streams ......................5

Regionalized Relation between Bankfull Discharge and Drainage Area ...................................5

Bankfull-Discharge Recurrence Intervals........................................................................................5

Stream-Channel Characteristics in Relation to Drainage Area ...................................................7

Stream Classification ...........................................................................................................................7

Comparison of Region 3 Equations to Equations for Other Regions in New York State ...........8

Limitations of this Study..............................................................................................................................12

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................13

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................13

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................14
iv

Multiply By To obtain

Length

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

Area

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Conversion Factors and Datum

List of Acronyms

NCD Natural channel design

HEC-RAS Hydraulic engineering center river analysis system

HHM Hydrologic and habitat modification

NPSCC Nonpoint-source coordinating committeee

NYCDEP-SMP New York City Department of Environmental Protection-Stream 

Management Program

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSDOS New York State Department of State

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Abstract

Equations that relate drainage area to bankfull discharge 

and channel characteristics (such as width, depth, and crosssectional area) at gaged sites are needed to define bankfull 

discharge and channel characteristics at ungaged sites and 

can be used for stream-restoration and protection projects, 

stream-channel classification, and channel assessments. These 

equations are intended to serve as a guide for streams in areas 

of similar hydrologic, climatic, and physiographic conditions. 

New York State contains eight hydrologic regions that were 

previously delineated on the basis of high-flow (flood) 

characteristics. This report presents predictive equations for 

bankfull characteristics (discharge and channel characteristics) 

for streams east of the Hudson River, referred to as Hydrologic 

Region 3. 

 Stream-survey data and discharge records from 12 

streamflow-gaging stations were used in regression analyses to 

relate drainage area to bankfull discharge and bankfull channel 

width, depth, and cross-sectional area. The four predictive 

equations are: 

bankfull discharge (cubic feet per second) = 

83.8 (drainage area (square miles))0.679, (1)

bankfull-channel width (feet) = 

24.0 (drainage area (square miles))0.292, (2)

bankfull-channel depth (feet) = 

1.66 (drainage area (square miles))0.210, (3)

bankfull-channel cross-sectional area (square feet) = 

39.8 (drainage area (square miles))0.503. (4)

The coefficients of determination (R2) for these four 

equations are 0.93, 0.85, 0.77, and 0.92, respectively. The 

high coefficients of determination for bankfull discharge and 

cross-sectional area indicate that much of the range in the 

variables is explained by the size of the drainage area; the 

smaller correlation coefficients for bankfull channel width 

Regionalized Equations for Bankfull-Discharge and 

Channel Characteristics of Streams in New York State—

Hydrologic Region 3 East of the Hudson River

By Christiane I. Mulvihill and Barry P. Baldigo

and depth indicate that other factors also affect these relations. 

Recurrence intervals for the estimated bankfull discharge 

of each stream ranged from 1.16 to 3.35 years; the mean 

recurrence interval was 2.08 years. The 12 surveyed streams 

were classified by Rosgen stream type; most were B and C 

type, with occasional E- and F-type cross sections. The Region 

3 equation (curve) for bankfull discharge was compared 

with those previously obtained for seven other hydrologic 

regions in New York State. The differences confirm that the 

hydraulic geometry of streams is affected by local climatic and 

physiographic conditions.

Introduction

Streambank erosion and the resulting sedimentation of 

streams can affect the water quality of reservoirs, endanger 

aquatic life, and threaten riparian habitat, private and public 

lands, and associated infrastructure. Streams throughout 

New York State that have abnormally high rates of erosion 

and sedimentation often require costly restoration efforts to 

stabilize the stream channel and banks and minimize further 

erosion to both. Stream-restoration projects have traditionally 

consisted of straightening, widening, and deepening the 

channel, hardening the banks, and imposing static stream 

characteristics—all of which can cause permanent ecological 

disruption. Recent stream-restoration projects, in contrast, 

have begun to use an approach that strives toward replication 

of stable-reach characteristics, such as the relation between 

drainage-area and channel cross-section characteristics, and 

the relations among channel characteristics, flow patterns, 

and water-surface profiles. Bankfull discharge and bankfullchannel characteristics of streams that are not gaged can be 

derived by using equations (curves) that have been developed 

using data from nearby stable reaches that are gaged. 

Channel-characteristics data from these nearby reference 

reaches provide the foundations for Natural Channel Design 

(NCD) restoration techniques to recreate geomorphically1

1

 Refers to channel slope, shape, and pattern (Rosgen, 1996).
2 Regionalized Equations for Bankfull-Discharge and Channel Characteristics of Streams in New York State—Region 3

stable stream reaches. The stream characteristics obtained 

through NCD techniques structurally resemble those of 

stable, undisturbed streams and, thus, can slow erosion and 

sedimentation and allow regeneration of aquatic ecosystems 

that are more diverse and functionally complete than those that 

typically result from the hardening of streambeds and banks.

Bankfull discharge is the most useful stream feature 

for defining the relations between drainage area and streamchannel characteristics. Bankfull discharge is the flow that 

reaches the transition between the channel and its floodplain 

and is thus morphologically significant (Leopold and others, 

1964). It may be functionally defined and identified as the 

stage or flow at which the stream is about to overtop its 

banks (Leopold and others, 1964; Leopold, 1994) and is 

reported to occur every 1 to 2 years, or 1.5 years on average 

(Rosgen, 1994). Bankfull discharge is the flow that moves the 

most sediment over time because of its force and frequency 

(Wolman and Miller, 1960; Leopold, 1994).

Bankfull discharge affects the relation between drainage 

area and stream-channel characteristics in two ways. First, it 

often occurs at a relatively discrete and identifiable stage; thus, 

the channel characteristics at bankfull stage form the basis 

for a system of stream classification (Rosgen, 1996). Second, 

relations between drainage area and discharge, and between 

drainage area and channel characteristics are relatively 

constant at bankfull stage in stable streams of a given class 

within a certain hydrologic region (Leopold and others, 1964; 

Rosgen, 1996).

Stable-channel characteristics for an unstable, ungaged 

stream can be estimated from equations that are based on data 

from stable streams that are subject to similar precipitation 

rates and climatic conditions, and whose drainage basins 

have similar soils, recharge patterns, flow patterns, and 

physiographic characteristics as the unstable stream. Deriving 

channel-characteristics equations from stable streams within 

a given hydrologic region can minimize differences in each 

variable and thereby increase the accuracy of the equations.

The New York State Hydrologic and Habitat Modification 

(HHM) subcommittee of the New York State Nonpoint-Source 

Coordinating Committeee (NPSCC) is overseeing a statewide 

cooperative effort to develop such equations through a system 

created by the New York City Department of Environmental 

Protection Stream Management Program (NYCDEP-SMP; 

Miller and Davis, 2003; Powell and others, 2003). Similar 

efforts are being conducted in other parts of the northeastern 

United States, including Vermont (Jaquith and Kline, 

2001), coastal and central Maine (Dudley 2004), and the 

Pennsylvania-Maryland Piedmont area (White, 2001; Cinotto 

2003). The equations, which reflect local precipitation rates, 

hydrologic conditions, physiographic characteristics, and soil 

properties, are expected to provide more reliable results than 

the currently available channel-characteristics equations which 

represent widespread and disparate geographic regions, such 

as those of Dunne and Leopold (1978), which represent the 

eastern United States.

Approach

In 2001, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in 

cooperation with the New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the New York 

State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), and the New 

York City Department of Environmental Protection, began 

a 6-year study to define the relations between drainage area 

and channel characteristics for the eight hydrologic regions of 

New York State (excluding Long Island) that were previously 

established to predict flood flows of unregulated streams 

(Lumia, 1991, fig. 1A). The New York State Department of 

State (NYSDOS)— Division of Coastal Resources joined as 

a cooperating agency in 2005. Equations have been developed 

for Regions 4 and 4a in the Catskills (Miller and Davis, 2003), 

Region 5 in central New York (Westergard and others, 2005), 

Region 6 in southwestern New York (Mulvihill and others, 

2005), Region 7 in western New York (Mulvihill and others, 

2006), and Regions 1 and 2 in the Adirondacks (Mulvihill and 

others, 2007).

Objectives of the study are to: (1) complete bankfull 

surveys on selected streams in all of the hydrologic regions 

to verify and (or) redefine these boundaries; (2) assess 

all streams for key features of the Rosgen (1996) streamclassification system: namely, channel-entrenchment ratio 

(ratio of flood-plain width to bankfull-channel width), channel 

width-to-depth ratio, water-surface slope, channel materials, 

and channel sinuosity (ratio of stream length to valley length); 

and (3) assess the accuracy of statewide bankfull equations 

by grouping channel-characteristics relations within each 

hydrologic region by stream type in accordance with the 

Rosgen stream-classification system (Miller and Davis, 2003).

Rosgen’s (1996) stream-classification system was created 

to provide reliable stream descriptions for use in evaluations 

of channel stability and in the design and simulation of stable 

conditions in ungaged stream reaches. The geomorphic 

characteristics defined by Rosgen (1996) that correspond 

to bankfull stage were chosen for their consistency among 

streams with similar physiographic conditions for a given 

drainage-basin size, and among streams subject to similar 

climatic conditions (Rosgen, 1994, 1996).

Region 3 (fig. 1B) is the subject of this report and the last 

of the eight hydrologic regions studied. Region 3 encompasses 

an area bounded by Connecticut and Massachusetts to the east, 

the Hudson River and its southern tributaries to the west and 

southwest, and the Poesten Kill and its tributaries to the north 

(Lumia, 1991). This region does not contain many actively 

gaged streams that are unregulated and have at least 10 years 

of peak-flow record; therefore, two gages with less than 

10 years of peak flow record were included in the development 

of the equations.

The hydrologic regions defined by Lumia (1991) were 

based on multiple linear-regression analyses that related 

the 50-year peak discharge to basin characteristics such 

as drainage area, main-channel slope, basin storage, mean 

annual precipitation, percentage of basin covered by forest 
Introduction 3

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data

6

5

7

1

2

4

4A 3

EXPLANATION

1 Hydrologic-region identifier

Hydrologic-region boundary

New York

80° 78° 76° 74° 72°

41°

43°

0 30 60 90 120 MILES

0 30 60 90 120 KILOMETERS

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW JERSEY

LONG ISLAND

CANADA

VERMONT

MASSACHUSETTS

CONNECTICUT

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

A

B

01379590 North Branch of Foulertons Brook

 at Roseland, NJ

01199477 Stony Brook near Dover Plains

0137499350 Hunter Brook south of Yorktown

01374598 Horse Pound Brook near Lake Carmel

01387450 Mahwah River near Suffern

01362100 Roeliff Jansen Kill near Hillsdale

01360640 Valatie Kill near Nassau

01374987 Kisco River below Mount Kisco

01372800 Fishkill Creek at Hopewell Junction

01387400 Ramapo River at Ramapo

01200000 Tenmile River near Gaylordsville, CT

01361000 Kinderhook Creek at Rossman

ACTIVE SITES

Region 4A

Region 4

MASSACHUSETTS

CONNECTICUT

LONG ISLAND

1

Streamflow-gaging stations

EXPLANATION

Hydrologic-region boundary

and identifier

Active, continuous record

Active, crest stage

County boundary

F ishkill C re ek

Bronx R iver

Kinderhoo k Creek Valatie Kill

Hudson R iver

P o este n K i l l

R amapo R iver

R o eliff Ja n s en K ill

Te nmile R iver

01360640

01361000

01362100

011991477

01200000

01372800

01374598

01374987

0137499350

01387450 01387400

01379590

SCHENECTADY

SARATOGA

ALBANY RENSSELAER

GREENE

DUTCHESS

ULSTER

SULLIVAN

ORANGE

PUTNAM

ROCKLAND WESTCHESTER

BRONX

NEW YORK 

KINGS

QUEENS NASSAU

SUFFOLK

COLUMBIA

75° 74° 73°

42°

41°

3

0 20 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 MILES

Region 2

10

Figure 1. Hydrologic regions of New York State: (A) hydrologic-region boundaries as defined by Lumia (1991) 

and (B) locations of the 12 streamflow-gaging stations used in 2005–06 stream survey in Region 3. (Names, period 

of record, drainage area, bankfull discharge, recurrence interval, and reach type are given in table 1; channel 

characteristics are given in table 2.)
4 Regionalized Equations for Bankfull-Discharge and Channel Characteristics of Streams in New York State—Region 3

area, mean main-channel elevation, and a basin-shape index 

(ratio of basin length to basin width). These boundaries can 

later be compared with those developed from bankfull survey 

data collected during this and other studies, and adjusted 

if necessary.

Purpose and Scope

This report (1) describes the methods of site selection and 

data collection and analysis; (2) presents predictive equations 

for estimating bankfull discharge, width, depth, cross-sectional 

area for streams in Region 3; and (3) compares bankfulldischarge equations developed for Region 3 with previously 

developed equations for Regions 1–2, 4, 4a, 5, 6, and 7.

Methods

Twelve streams were surveyed during 2005–06. The 

methods used to collect and analyze the resulting data are 

described in detail in Powell and others (2003).

Site Selection

The streams were selected to represent a wide range of 

drainage-area sizes (table 1) so that the resulting equations 

would be applicable to a majority of streams within the 

hydrologic region. Other selection criteria (Miller and Davis, 

2003) for study reaches are listed below: 

•	 All must contain a USGS streamflow-gaging station with at 

least 10 years of annual peak-discharge data, when possible. 

•	 All must be primarily alluvial, unregulated, and consist of a 

single channel at bankfull stage.

•	 All must include at least two sequences of a pool and a 

riffle, or be at least 20 bankfull widths in length.

•	 All must have readily identifiable bankfull indicators 

(defined in following section).

•	 All must meet the minimum requirements for slope-area 

calculation of discharge (uniform channel characteristics; 

flow confined to a single, trapezoidal channel; and watersurface elevation drop of at least 0.50 ft within the reach 

(Dalrymple and Benson, 1967), so that survey data can 

be used reliably in hydraulic analysis and calculation of 

bankfull discharge.

•	 All should represent a single Rosgen (1996) stream type, 

if possible.

USGS streamflow-gaging stations are not always located 

on geomorphically stable stream reaches because factors such 

as land-owner permission, access to the station, and the need 

for the safe measurement of high flows often dictate where 

a station is located. As a result, bridges and other structures 

may cause localized channel instability at stream reaches 

near stations. To assess channel stability at stations used in 

this study, recent flow-measurements and rating curves were 

inspected for evidence of scour, deposition, and frequent 

shifting of bed material. 

The selected sites were referred to as calibration sites 

because they were used to develop, or calibrate, the channelcharacteristics equations. Region 3 contains 13 active stations 

with 10 or more years of peak-flow record; 10 of these were 

found suitable for station calibration surveys. Two additional 

stations were added to ensure that the regional curves were 

as representative as possible; these were Hunter Brook south 

of Yorktown (0137499350) which has 8 years of record 

and North Branch of Foulertons Brook at Roseland, N.J., 

(01379590) which has 7 years of record.

Data Collection

Preliminary reconnaissance of all sites entailed marking 

bankfull indicators, cross-section locations, and reach 

boundaries. Bankfull indicators consisted of: (1) topographic 

break from vertical bank to flat flood plain; (2) topographic 

break from steep slope to gentle slope; (3) change in 

vegetation (for example, from treeless to trees); (4) textural 

change in sediment; (5) scour break, or elevation below which 

no fine debris (needles, leaves, cones, seeds) occurs; and 

(6) back of point bar, lateral bar, or low bench (Castro and 

Jackson, 2001; Miller and Davis, 2003).

The upper and lower ends of the reach and the locations 

of cross sections were marked with rebar driven into the 

streambank above bankfull stage on one bank. Three to five 

cross sections at each site were placed in riffles or runs, 

away from channel-constricting structures such as bridges 

and culverts.

Each study reach was surveyed by methods described 

in Powell and others (2003). Longitudinal-profile and crosssectional surveys were conducted. The longitudinal-profile 

survey consisted of elevation measurements of the follwing 

features: the rebar markers at the upper and lower reach 

limits; all bankfull indicators; and the thalweg and water 

surface at each bankfull indicator, cross section, and poolto-riffle transition. The cross-sectional surveys consisted of 

surveying bed and bank elevations, bankfull indicators, rebar 

that marked cross sections, and the flood-plain width. The 

reference elevation for all surveys was the elevation that was 

used to define the stage-to-discharge relation at active sites 

and to develop the stage-to-discharge relation at inactive sites. 

Channel-bed material throughout the reach was characterized 

through a modified Wolman pebble count (Harrelson and 

others, 1994).
Regional Equations for Bankfull Discharge and Channel Characteristics of Streams 5

Data Analysis

All field data were compiled for graphical analysis. 

At most sites, a bankfull-elevation profile along the study 

reach was constructed by plotting a linear-regression line 

through the surveyed bankfull-stage indicators. Bankfull 

water-surface elevation (stage) and discharge at these sites 

were derived from best-fit lines, rather than from surveyed 

bankfull indicators, to smooth local variations in slope that 

can result from intermittent disruptions such as debris piles 

or bedrock outcrops. Bankfull stage and discharge at two 

sites Fishkill Creek at Hopewell Junction—(01372800) and 

Kinderhook Creek at Rossman(01361000)—were obtained 

through a regression technique called a LOWESS smooth 

(Locally Weighted Scatterplot Smoother; Ott and Longnecker, 

2001) because sharp changes in channel slope and difficult-toidentify bankfull indicators caused the best-fit bankfull line to 

misrepresent the true elevation of bankfull stage.

The bankfull stage at the station or staff plate at all sites 

was calculated as described above, and the corresponding 

bankfull discharge was obtained from the most current 

stage-to-discharge relation. Estimates of bankfull discharges 

were verified through a hydraulic analysis of the bankfull 

geomorphic data collected during the station-calibration 

survey as described below. Additional details are provided in 

Powell and others (2003).

1. The computer program NCALC (Jarrett and Petsch, 

1985) was used to compute Manning’s n, the roughness 

coefficient for the reach. Data required for this 

computation were discharge from the stage-to-discharge 

relation, channel-bed and bankfull water-surface 

elevations at each cross section, and the distance along the 

thalweg between cross sections (Jarrett and Petsch, 1985). 

2. The computer program HEC-RAS (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineer’s Hydraulic Engineering Center River Analysis 

System; Brunner, 1997) was used to calculate bankfull 

discharge from the water-surface elevation as follows: 

first, the reference elevation for the survey was entered 

as the starting elevation; Manning’s n (from the NCALC 

analysis), channel-bed elevations at each cross section, 

the distance along the thalweg between cross sections, 

and several estimated discharges were input for each 

cross section; the discharge at the water-surface elevation 

calculated by HEC-RAS that most closely approximated 

the surveyed bankfull water-surface elevation was chosen 

as the bankfull discharge at each cross section; and finally, 

the average of these discharges from all cross sections in 

the reach was used as the bankfull discharge for the reach. 

3. The bankfull discharge obtained from the stage-todischarge relation was compared with the bankfull 

discharge obtained from the HEC-RAS analysis. If 

the two discharges differed by 10 percent or less, the 

discharge obtained from the stage-to-discharge relation 

was then used as the bankfull discharge, and the 

recurrence interval of this discharge was calculated. If 

the two discharges differed by more than 10 percent, 

the site and reach selection, discharge measurements, 

elevation of bankfull indicators, and development of the 

stage-to-discharge relation were reviewed for sources of 

error. If no errors were found, the discharge that more 

closely fit the expected 1- to 2-year bankfull recurrence 

interval was chosen.

The bankfull discharges from the stage-to-discharge 

rating agreed with the bankfull discharges from the HEC-RAS 

analysis at all 12 sites.

Regional Equations for Bankfull 

Discharge and Channel 

Characteristics of Streams

Relations between bankfull discharge, depth, width, 

cross-sectional area, and drainage area for Region 3 are 

presented below. The period of record, drainage area, bankfull 

discharge, associated recurrence intervals, and Rosgen (1994) 

stream type for each site are summarized in table 1.

Regionalized Relation between Bankfull 

Discharge and Drainage Area 

The equation that estimates bankfull discharge for 

streams in Region 3 (fig. 2) is:

bankfull discharge (ft3/s) = 83.8 (drainage area(mi2))0.67, (5)

and has a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.93. The 

95-percent confidence and prediction intervals for the 

equation are shown in figure 2. The 95-percent confidence 

interval defines the range within which results from data 

collected on a different set of streams in the same region 

would have a 95-percent probability of occurring, whereas 

the wider 95-percent prediction interval defines the range 

within which the bankfull discharge estimated for a single 

stream of a given drainage area in the region would have a 

95-percent probability of occurring. Comparing results from 

equations developed for other regions and their 95-percent 

confidence and prediction intervals with those obtained for 

streams of Region 3 can help identify regional differences in 

stream characteristics. 

Bankfull-Discharge Recurrence Intervals

The recurrence interval for the estimated bankfull 

discharge of each stream was obtained from discharge-
6 Regionalized Equations for Bankfull-Discharge and Channel Characteristics of Streams in New York State—Region 3

Table 1. Characteristics of streamflow-gaging stations surveyed in Region 3 of New York, 2005–06.

[mi2, square miles; ft3/s, cubic feet per second. Streamflow-gaging-station locations are shown in fig. 1B]

Site name 

and 

USGS

station number

Period(s)

of 

record

Drainage 

area 

(mi2)

Bankfull 

discharge1

(ft3/s)

Recurrence 

interval of 

bankfull 

discharge

(years)

Reach 

stream 

type2

North Branch of Foulertons Brook 

at Roseland, N.J.

(01379590)

1999–present 0.42 72 3.003 E4b

Stony Brook near Dover Plains 

(01199477)

1974–present 1.93 88 1.40 B4a

Horse Pound Brook near Lake 

Carmel (01374598)

1996–present 3.94 196 3.35 C4, B4c

Hunter Brook south of Yorktown 

(0137499350)

1999–present 7.42 679 2.304 B3c, F3

Valatie Kill near Nassau 

(01360640)

1990–present 9.48 227 1.16 C4 

Mahwah River near Suffern 

(01387450)

1958–present 12.30 324 1.20 C4

Kisco River below Mount Kisco 

(01374987)

1995–present 17.6 613 2.00 B3c

Roeliff Jansen Kill near Hillsdale 

(01362100) 

1956–present 27.5 690 1.80 B4c

Fishkill Creek at Hopewell 

Junction5 (01372800)

1957–1976,

1986–present

57.3 1110 2.80 C4

Ramapo River at Ramapo 

(01387400)

1979–present 86.9 2120 1.80 F3

Tenmile River near Gaylordsville, 

Conn. (01200000)

1929–present 203 3020 2.01 C4

Kinderhook Creek at Rossman5

(01361000)

1906–1968, 

1987–present

329 5640 2.10 F3

1

 From stage-discharge relation. 

2

 From Rosgen (1994): 

B3c: low-gradient, moderately entrenched, riffle-dominated channel with cobbles; 

B4a: steep gradient, moderately entrenched, riffle-dominated channel with gravel;

B4c: low-gradient, moderately entrenched, riffle-dominated channel with gravel; 

C4: low-gradient, gravel-dominated channel with well defined flood plains;

E4b: sinuous, high-gradient channel with gravel;

F3: sinuous, low-gradient, highly entrenched cobble-dominated channel. 

 Channel materials from longitudinal-profile pebble count (table 2). 3

 Recurrence interval estimated from 7 years of record.

4

 Recurrence interval estimated from 8 years of record.

5

 Bankfull gage height from LOWESS smooth.
Regional Equations for Bankfull Discharge and Channel Characteristics of Streams 7

frequency relations that were developed for each of the 

study sites by fitting the logarithms of the annual peakdischarges to a Pearson type III distribution according to 

guidelines recommended by the U.S. Water Resources 

Council (1981). The resulting data were analyzed using 

U.S. Geological Survey flood-frequency programs (Kirby, 

1981). Previous investigations reported that the average 

recurrence interval for bankfull discharge typically ranges 

from 1 to 2 years (Dunne and Leopold, 1976; Rosgen, 

1996; Harman and Jennings, 1999). The bankfull-discharge 

recurrence interval for streams surveyed in Region 3 ranged 

from 1.16 to 3.35 years and averaged 2.08 years (table 1). 

Previous investigations in Regions 4 and 4a found an average 

bankfull-discharge recurrence interval of 1.54 years and a 

range of 1.2 to 2.7 years (Miller and Davis, 2003) (fig. 1A); 

an average of 1.51 years and a range of 1.11 to 3.40 years in 

Region 5 (Westergard and others, 2004) (fig. 1A); an average 

of 1.54 years and a range of 1.01 to 2.35 years in Region 6 

(Mulvihill and others, 2005) (fig. 1A); an average of 2.13 

and a range of 1.05 to 3.60 years in Region 7 (Mulvihill and 

others, 2006) (fig. 1A); and an average of 2.13 years and a 

range of 1.01 to 3.80 years in Regions 1 and 2 (Mulvihill and 

others, 2007) (fig. 1A). 

Stream-Channel Characteristics in Relation to 

Drainage Area 

Regression equations for bankfull channel width, depth, 

and cross-sectional area for streams in Region 3 are as follows: 

bankfull-channel width (ft) = 24.0 (drainage area(mi2))0.292, (6)

bankfull-channel depth (ft) = 1.66 (drainage area(mi2))0.210, (7)

bankfull-channel cross-sectional area (ft2) = 39.8 (drainage 

area(mi2))0.503. (8)

Results are plotted in figure 3; coefficients of 

determination (R2) for the equations were 0.85, 0.77, and 0.92, 

respectively. The high coefficient of determination (R2) for 

cross-sectional area indicates that 92 percent of the variability 

is explained by drainage area. The lower coefficients of 

determination for the equations that relate bankfull width and 

bankfull depth to drainage area suggest that other factors such 

as basin shape, vegetation, and channel materials (Leopold 

1994) could also affect this relation.

The raw data for Region 3 equations and the 

corresponding 95-percent confidence and prediction intervals 

are provided in plots of mean bankfull width, depth, and crosssectional area as a function of drainage area in figures 4A 

through 4C, respectively.

Stream Classification

The Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1996) 

categorizes streams on the basis of channel morphology 

to provide consistent, quantitative descriptions of stream 

condition (Harman and Jennings, 1999). This study used the 

following criteria and measurements to classify each reach by 

the Rosgen stream type; the values obtained are provided in 

table 2.

•	 Entrenchment ratio: a field measurement of channel 

incision, defined as the flood-plain width divided by 

the bankfull width (Harman and Jennings, 1999). The 

flood-plain width is measured at the elevation of twice 

the maximum depth at bankfull.

•	 Width-to-Depth ratio: bankfull width divided by the 

mean bankfull depth (Harman and Jennings, 1999).

•	 Water-surface slope: the difference between the 

water-surface elevation at the upstream end of a 

riffle to the upstream end of another riffle at least 20 

bankfull widths downstream, divided by the distance 

between the riffles along the thalweg (Harman and 

Jennings, 1999).

•	 Median size (D50) of bed material: the median particle 

size, or the diameter that exceeds the diameter of 

50 percent of all streambed particles (Harman and 

y = 83.8x0.679

R2 = 0.93

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

0 1 10 100 1,000

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

95-percent prediction interval

95-percent confidence interval

BANKFULL DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Figure 2. Bankfull discharge as a function of drainage area 

with 95-percent prediction limit and 95-percent confidence 

interval for streams surveyed in Region 3, in New York State.
8 Regionalized Equations for Bankfull-Discharge and Channel Characteristics of Streams in New York State—Region 3

Jennings, 1999). D50 values were obtained through a 

modified Wolman pebble count (modified to account 

for bank and inchannel material, sand and smaller 

particle sizes, and bedrock (Rosgen, 1996)).

•	 Sinuosity: stream length divided by valley length 

(Harman and Jennings, 1999).

Each reach was classified by Rosgen stream type 

according to the average of stream-channel measures taken 

at each cross section (table 1). Each cross section was also 

classified individually by Rosgen stream type (table 2). Stream 

types A through G represent seven major stream categories 

that differ in entrenchment ratio, water-surface slope, widthdepth ratio, and sinuosity (Rosgen, 1996, table 2). Within 

each major category, the numbers 1 through 6 are assigned to 

dominant channel material ranging from bedrock to silt and 

clay (Rosgen, 1996).

Two of the 12 streams surveyed had one or more cross 

sections that were classified as a different stream type. These 

were Horse Pound Brook near Lake Carmel (01374598) and 

Hunter Brook south of Yorktown (0137499350) (table 1). 

Almost all cross sections in the 12 streams surveyed were 

classified as type B or C; exceptions were Ramapo River 

at Ramapo (01387400) and Kinderhook Creek at Rossman 

(01361000), which are F type streams, and North Branch of 

Foulertons Brook at Roseland, N.J. (01379590), which is an E 

type stream. The primary difference between B and C streams 

is the entrenchment ratio (width of the flood-prone area at an 

elevation twice the maximum bankfull depth/bankfull width; 

Rosgen, 1994), therefore, the majority of the streams surveyed 

differed from one another only in the degree of vertical 

containment of the river channel (Rosgen, 1994). 

Comparison of Region 3 Equations to Equations 

for Other Regions in New York State

Results from the Region 3 equation for the relation 

between bankfull discharge and drainage area were compared 

with those developed for six other hydrologic regions in 

y = 39.8x0.503

R2 = 0.92

y = 24.0x0.292

R2 = 0.85

y = 1.66x0.210

R2 = 0.77

1

10

100

1,000

0.1 1 10 100 1,000

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

Bankfull channel width

Bankfull channel depth

Bankfull channel cross-sectional area

BANKFULL CHANNEL WIDTH AND DEPTH, IN FEET,

 AND CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA, IN SQUARE FEET

Figure 3. Bankfull width, depth, and cross-sectional area as a function of drainage area with 

best-fit lines, regression equations, and R 

2

 values for all streams surveyed in Region 3 in New 

York State.
Regional Equations for Bankfull Discharge and Channel Characteristics of Streams 9

y = 24.0x0.292

R2 = 0.85

1

10

100

1,000

0 1 10 100 1,000

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES 

95-percent prediction interval

95-percent confidence interval

BANKFULL CHANNEL WIDTH, IN FEET

A. BANKFULL CHANNEL WIDTH

y = 1.66x0.210

R2 = 0.77

0.1

1

10

0 1 10 100 1,000

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

95-percent prediction interval

95-percent confidence interval

B. BANKFULL CHANNEL DEPTH

BANKFULL CHANNEL DEPTH, IN FEET

y = 39.8x0.503

R2 = 0.92

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

0.1 1 10 100 1,000

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

95-percent prediction interval

95-percent confidence interval

BANKFULL CHANNEL CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA, 

C. BANKFULL CHANNEL CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA

Figure 4. Selected channel characteristics as a function of drainage area with 95-percent prediction limits and 95-percent 

confidence intervals for streams in Region 3 in New York State: (A) bankfull channel width, (B) bankfull channel depth, and 

(C) bankfull channel cross-sectional area. 
10 Regionalized Equations for Bankfull-Discharge and Channel Characteristics of Streams in New York State—Region 3 Table 2. Stream classification and bankfull-channel characteristics for cross sections at the 12 streamflow-gaging stations surveyed in Region 3 in New York State.— Continued [ft, feet; ft2, square feet; mi2, square miles; mm, millimeters. Site locations are shown in fig. 1B.] Site name and station- identification number Drainage area (mi2

)

Crosssection 

downstream 

stationing 

(ft)

Bankfull 

width 

(ft)

Bankfull 

depth 

(ft)

Bankfull 

crosssectional 

area 

(ft2

)

Width 

of 

flood plain 

(ft)

Entrenchment 

ratio1

Widthtodepth 

ratio

Water 

surface 

slope

D50

(mm)2 Sinuosity3

Crosssection 

stream 

type4

North Branch ofFoulertons Brookat Roseland, N.J.(01379590)

0.42 33 14.9 1.8 26.7 477 32.0 8.3 0.020 41 1.13 E4b

66 15.5 1.4 22.3 168 10.8 11.1 E4b

152 15.0 1.6 23.3 28 1.9 9.4 E4b231 15.6 1.6 24.8 91 5.8 9.8 E4b

Stony Brook nearDover Plains(01199477)

1.93 142 28.7 1.7 47.7 56 2.0 16.9 .052 46 1.08 B4a

454 45.4 3.2 145.4 96 2.1 14.2 B4a497 40.0 2.2 89.6 73 1.8 18.2 B4a533 35.2 1.8 64.1 65 1.8 19.6 B4a

Horse Pound Brook near LakeCarmel(01374598)

3.94 550 50.6 1.5 77.4 162 3.2 33.7 .009 34 1.07 C4

602 65.9 1.5 96.5 131 2.0 43.9 B4c641 27.7 2.4 66.3 156 5.6 11.5 C4

Hunter Brook south of Yorktown(0137499350)

7.42 233 54.6 2.4 133.4 109 2.0 22.8 .019 166 1.40 B3c

494 69.3 2.2 151.3 93 1.3 31.5 F3559 50.5 2.4 119.9 63 1.2 21.0 F3607 45.4 3.0 134.6 70 1.5 15.1 B3c

Valatie Kill nearNassau(01360640)

9.48 125 38.3 2.3 89.0 185 4.8 16.7 .002 25 1.21 C4

173 34.5 2.2 76.8 197 5.7 15.7 C4227 42.7 2.1 87.6 242 5.7 20.3 C4337 38.7 1.8 69.6 232 6.0 21.5 C4

Mahwah Rivernear Suffern(01387450)

12.3 440 46.3 2.8 128.1 547 11.8 16.5 .002 19 1.49 C4

784 45.9 2.8 126.6 359 7.8 16.4 C4901 37.7 2.6 96.4 380 10.1 14.5 C4

1006 42.1 2.5 107.2 368 8.7 16.8 C4

Kisco Riverbelow MountKisco(01374987)

17.6 265 47.0 3.2 149.6 72 1.5 14.7 .009 103 1.41 B3c

324 51.3 3.2 166.2 81 1.6 16.0 B3c424 58.4 3.1 183.0 84 1.4 18.8 B3c
Regional Equations for Bankfull Discharge and Channel Characteristics of Streams 11

Table 2. Stream classification and bankfull-channel characteristics for cross sections at the 12 streamflow-gaging stations surveyed in Region 3 in New York State.—Continued [ft, feet; ft2, square feet; mi2, square miles; mm, millimeters. Site locations are shown in fig. 1B.]

Site 

name 

and stationidentification 

number

Drainage 

area 

(mi2

)

Crosssection 

downstream 

stationing 

(ft)

Bankfull 

width 

(ft)

Bankfull 

depth 

(ft)

Bankfull 

crosssectional 

area 

(ft2

)

Width 

of 

flood plain 

(ft)

Entrenchment 

ratio1

Widthtodepth 

ratio

Water 

surface 

slope

D50

(mm)2 Sinuosity3

Crosssection 

stream 

type4

Roeliff Jansen Kill near Hillsdale(01362100)

27.5 318 54.4 3.5 189.1 115 2.1 15.5 0.005 20 1.31 B4c

383 55.8 3.8 213.8 118 2.1 14.7 B4c435 60.4 3.1 185.2 85 1.4 19.5 B4c

Fishkill Creek at Hopewell Junction(01372800)

57.3 822 64.8 5.5 355.7 174 2.7 11.8 .001 8 1.22 C4

899 69.9 5.2 363.4 185 2.6 13.4 C4986 63.5 5.0 316.6 208 3.3 12.7 C4

Ramapo Riverat Ramapo(01387400)

86.9 1337 120.1 3.1 367.4 144 1.2 38.7 .004 84 1.37 F3

1542 107.2 3.0 324.5 123 1.1 35.7 F31896 100.1 3.8 379.9 121 1.2 26.3 F3

Tenmile River near Gaylordsville, Conn. (01200000)

203 272 108.4 6.4 696.5 386 3.6 16.9 .002 59 1.41 C4

373 102.5 6.1 626.3 383 3.7 16.8 C4467 98.9 5.7 564.5 379 3.8 17.4 C4

KinderhookCreek at Rossman (01361000)

329 396 139.6 5.8 806.5 157 1.1 24.1 .002 171 1.11 F3

1047 156.4 5.8 910.5 177 1.1 27.0 F3

1 Entrenchment ratio: flood-plain width divided by bankfull width (Harman and Jennings, 1999).2 D50: median particle size, the diameter that exceeds that of 50 percent of all streambed particles in the reach.3 Sinuosity: ratio of stream length to valley length (Harman and Jennings, 1999).4 from Rosgen (1994): 

B3c: low-gradient, moderately entrenched, riffle-dominated channel with cobbles; B4a: steep gradient, moderately entrenched, riffle-dominated channel with gravel;B4c: low-gradient, moderately entrenched, riffle-dominated channel with gravel; C4: low-gradient, gravel-dominated channel with well defined flood plains;E4b: sinuous, high-gradient channel with gravel;F3: sinuous, low-gradient, highly entrenched cobble dominated channel.
12 Regionalized Equations for Bankfull-Discharge and Channel Characteristics of Streams in New York State—Region 3

New York State (fig. 5). The 95-percent confidence interval 

for the Region 3 curve almost fully encompasses the curves 

for Regions 1–2, 4a, 5, and 6 (fig. 5) and thereby indicates 

that there are very few differences in the relations between 

drainage area and bankfull discharge in these six regions. The 

curves also indicate, however, that a stream with a drainage 

area of 10mi2 would have an average bankfull discharge of 

200 ft3/s in Region 7, 400 ft3/s in Region 3, and 700 ft3/s in 

Region 4 (fig. 5). These differences indicate that streams close 

to one another do not always have similar flow regimes, and 

that regional curves designed for a specific geographic area, 

such as those described herein, are useful for those concerned 

with local watershed management and planning. 

Limitations of this Study

An assumption made in this investigation—that the 

bankfull discharge was within the 1- to 2-year recurrenceinterval range—may be an oversimplification (Thorne and 

others, 1997), even though similar recurrence intervals have 

been obtained in other studies (Harman and Jennings, 1999; 

Rosgen, 1994). Channel characteristics associated with a 1- to 

2-year recurrence interval were used to aid in the identification 

of bankfull indicators during initial site inspections, but if the 

bankfull recurrence interval at a site was longer or shorter 

than that frequency, the bankfull channel could be incorrectly 

identified (White, 2001). The average bankfull recurrence 

interval for streams surveyed in Region 3 was 2.08 years, 

Figure 5. Bankfull discharge as a function of drainage area for Region 3 and published curves for six other regions in 

New York State.

10

100

1,000

10,000

0.1 1 10 100 1,000

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

Region 3

Region 3 − 95-percent confidence interval

Regions 1 and 21

Region 42

Region 4a2

Region 53

Region 64

Region 75

BANKFULL DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Sources:

1

 Mulvihill and others, 2007

2

 Miller and Davis, 2003

3

 Westergard and others, 2005

4

 Mulvihill and others, 2005

5

 Mulvihill and others, 2006

EXPLANATION
Acknowledgments 13

which is longer than the average 1.5-year frequency predicted 

by Rosgen (1996), but still within the 1- to 2.5-year range 

predicted by Leopold (1994). 

Another limiting factor in this investigation was the small 

number of active USGS streamflow-gaging stations in Region 

3 that met selection criteria. Therefore, two additional stations 

were added to ensure that the curves were as representative 

as possible—one of these had eight years of record (Hunter 

Brook South of Yorktown (0137499350) and the other had 

seven years of record and was in New Jersey (North Branch 

of Foulertons Brook at Roseland, N.J. (01379590). The 

justification for using a station outside New York State is that 

this stream is relatively close to the New York State border, 

and data from stations in neighboring states also were used in 

the delineation of the hydrologic regions (Lumia, 1991).

The use of these two sites which had been active for 

less than 10 years was based on the assumption that existing 

records were sufficient for field verification of bankfull stage; 

the actual recurrence interval of bankfull discharge can be 

recalculated when additional data become available. The data 

analysis for the two sites representing more than one stream 

type—(Horse Pound Brook near Lake Carmel (01374598) and 

Hunter Brook South of Yorktown (0137499350)—was based 

on the assumption that averaging measurements from cross 

sections of differing types provided an accurate measure of 

overall reach characteristics.

Sharp changes in channel slope and difficult-to-identify 

bankfull indicators at two sites, Fishkill Creek at Hopewell 

Junction (01372800) and Kinderhook Creek at Rossman 

(01361000), caused the best-fit bankfull line to misrepresent 

the true elevation of bankfull stage; therefore, these values 

were obtained through a regression technique called a 

LOWESS smooth (Ott and Longnecker, 2001). 

Regional channel-characteristics equations can be more 

reliable than those representing an entire state or large area 

in the design of stream-restoration projects, enhancement 

of fish habitat, and adjustment of instream and riparian 

structures (Castro and Jackson, 2001). Users of these regional 

relations must recognize their limitations and accept that these 

regression equations are only designed to provide preliminary 

estimates of bankfull-channel characteristics and discharges, 

and are not intended to substitute for the field measurement 

and verification of bankfull-channel characteristics and 

streamflow (White, 2001).

Summary and Conclusions

Equations that relate bankfull discharge and channel 

characteristics (width, depth, and cross-sectional area) to the 

size of the drainage area at gaged stream sites are needed 

to predict bankfull discharge and channel characteristics 

at ungaged streams and to serve as a guide in the design of 

stream-restoration projects. The USGS, in cooperation with 

the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, 

and the New York State Departments of Environmental 

Conservation, Transportation, and State began a study in 2001 

to develop such equations for streams throughout New York 

State. This report presents results for streams in Region 3 east 

of the Hudson River. Twelve sites were chosen in accordance 

with established guidelines. Stream-survey data and discharge 

records from these sites were used in regression analyses to 

relate four factors (bankfull discharge, bankfull channel width, 

depth, and cross-sectional area) to drainage area. The resulting 

equations were: 

bankfull discharge (ft3/s) = 83.8 (drainage area (mi2))0.67, (9)

bankfull-channel width (ft) = 24.0 (drainage area (mi2))0.292, (10)

bankfull-channel depth (ft) = 1.66 (drainage area (mi2))0.210, (11)

bankfull-channel cross-sectional area (ft2) = 39.8 (drainage 

area (mi2))0.50. (12)

The coefficients of determination (R2) for all of these 

(0.93, 0.85, 0.77 and 0.92, respectively) indicate that much 

of the variation in these factors is explained by the size of the 

drainage area. 

Recurrence intervals of bankfull discharges were 

calculated for each stream through regression equations that 

relate measured discharges to known recurrence intervals. 

The recurrence intervals for bankfull discharge of the 12 

surveyed streams in Region 3 ranged from 1.16 to 3.35 years, 

and the mean recurrence interval was 2.08 years. Streams 

were classified by Rosgen stream type on the basis of specific 

channel characteristics at each surveyed cross section. Most 

streams were B and C types; a few had E and F type cross 

sections. Results from the Region 3 equation for the relation 

between bankfull discharge and drainage area were compared 

with equations developed for seven other regions in New York 

State. Differences indicate a need to develop equations by 

region to improve their accuracy.

Acknowledgments

Thanks are extended to Daniel Davis, Sarah Miller, and 

Elizabeth Reichheld (NYCDEP) for geomorphology training 

and for advice on survey and data analysis and methods of 

interpretation. Thanks are also extended to Richard Lumia 

(USGS) for calculating recurrence intervals, and to Arthur 

Coleman (Trout Unlimited), Ian Kirlay (Cornell University), 

Amy Filipowicz (NYSDOS), Brittney Petitt (Cornell 

University), and Beth Vollmer (Cornell University) for 

assistance in the field. 
14 Regionalized Equations for Bankfull-Discharge and Channel Characteristics of Streams in New York State—Region 3

References Cited

Brunner, G.W., 1997, HEC-RAS River Analysis System user’s 

manual: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CPD-68, 205 p.

Castro, J.M., and Jackson, P.L., 2001, Bankfull discharge 

recurrence intervals and regional hydraulic geometry 

relationships—Patterns in the Pacific Northwest, USA: 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 

37, no. 5, p. 1249–1262.

Chaplin, J.J., 2005, Development of regional curves relating 

bankfull-channel geometry and discharge to drainage area 

for streams in Pennsylvania and selected areas of Maryland: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2005-5147, 34 p.

Cinotto, P.J., 2003, Development of regional curves of 

bankfull-channel geometry and discharge for streams in the 

non-urban, Piedmont Physiographic Province, Pennsylvania 

and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 2003–4014, 27 p.

Dalrymple, Tate, and Benson, M.A., 1967, Measurement of 

peak discharge by the slope-area method: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

Book 3, chap. A2, 12 p.

Dudley, R.W., Hydraulic-geometry relations for rivers 

in coastal and central Maine: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5042, 30 p.

Dunne, Thomas, and Leopold, L.B., 1978, Water in 

environmental planning: San Francisco, W.H. Freeman, 

818 p.

Harman, W.A., and Jennings, G.D., 1999, River course—

Application of the Rosgen stream classification system to 

North Carolina: Raleigh, N.C., North Carolina Cooperative 

Extension Service, accessed October 5, 2002, at http://www.

bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/sri/rv-crs2.pdf 

Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., and Potyondy, J.P., 1994, 

Stream-channel reference sites—An illustrated guide 

to field technique: Ft. Collins, Co., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, General Technical Report RM-245, 61 p. 

Jaquith, Shayne, and Kline, Michael, 2001, Vermont regional 

hydraulic geometry curves: Waterbury, Vt., Vermont 

Water Quality Division, accessed March 6, 2003, at 

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/docs/rv_

hydraulicgeocurves.pdf

Jarrett, R.D., and Petsch, H.E., 1985, Computer program 

NCALC user’s manual—Verification of Manning’s 

roughness coefficient in channels: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 85–4317, 27 p.

Kennedy, E.J., 1984, Discharge ratings at gaging stations: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, Book 3, chap. A10, 59 p.

Kirby, William, 1981, Annual flood frequency analysis using 

U.S. Water Resources Council guidelines (Program J407): 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-435, chap. I, 

section C, 57 p.

Leopold, L.B., 1994, A view of the river: Cambridge, Mass., 

Harvard University Press, 298 p.

Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G., and Miller, J.P., 1964, Fluvial 

processes in geomorphology: San Francisco, W.H. 

Freeman, 522 p.

Lumia, Richard, 1991, Regionalization of flood discharges 

for rural, unregulated streams in New York, excluding 

Long Island: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 90–4197, 119 p.

Lumia, Richard, Freehafer, D.A., and Smith, M.J., 2006, 

Magnitude and frequency of floods in New York: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report, 2006–

5112, 14 p.

Miller, S.J., and Davis, Daniel, 2003, Identifying and 

optimizing regional relationships for bankfull discharge 

and hydraulic geometry at USGS stream gage sites in the 

Catskill Mountains, New York: New York City Department 

of Environmental Protection Technical Report, 24 p.

Mulvihill, C.I., Ernst, A.G., and Baldigo, B.P., 2005, 

Regionalized equations for bankfull-discharge and channel 

characteristics of streams in New York State—Hydrologic 

Region 6 in the southern tier of New York: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5100, 14 p.

Mulvihill, C.I., Ernst, A.G., and Baldigo, B.P., 2006, 

Regionalized equations for bankfull discharge and channel 

characteristics of streams in New York State—Hydrologic 

Region 7 in western New York State: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5075, 14 p.

Mulvihill, C.I., Flipowicz, Amy, Coleman, Arthur, and 

Baldigo, B.P., 2007, Regionalized equations for bankfull 

discharge and channel characteristics of streams in New 

York State—Hydrologic Regions 1 and 2 in the Adirondack 

region of northern New York: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5189, 18 p. 
References Cited 15

Ott, Lyman, and Longnecker, Michael, 2001, An introduction 

to statistical methods and data analysis, 5th ed., Pacific 

Grove, Calif., 1152 p.

Powell, R.O., Miller, S.J., Westergard, B.E., Mulvihill, C.I., 

Baldigo, B.P., Gallagher, A.S., and Starr, R.R. , 2004, 

Guidelines for surveying bankfull-discharge geometry and 

developing regional hydraulic-geometry models for streams 

of New York State: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 03–92, 20 p. 

Rosgen, D.L., 1994, A classification of natural rivers: Catena, 

v. 22, no. 3, p. 169–199.

Rosgen, D.L., 1996, Applied river morphology: Pagosa 

Springs, Colo., Wildland Hydrology, 388 p.

Thorne, C.R., Hey, R.D., and Newson, M.D., 1997, 

Applied fluvial geomorphology for river engineering and 

management: Chichester, England, John Wiley, 376 p.

U.S. Water Resources Council, 1981, Guidelines 

for determining floodflow frequency: Hydrology 

Subcommittee, Bulletin 17B, 28 p., appendixes.

Westergard, B.E., Mulvihill, C.I., Ernst, A.G., and Baldigo, 

B.P., 2005, Regionalized equations for bankfull-discharge 

and channel characteristics of streams in New York State—

Hydrologic Region 5 in central New York: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5247, 16 p.

White, K.E., 2001, Regional curve development and selection 

of a reference reach in the non-urban lowland sections 

of the Piedmont Physiographic Province, Pennsylvania 

and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 01-4146, 20 p. 

Wolman, M.G. and Miller, J.P., 1960, Magnitude and 

frequency of forces in geomorphic processes: Journal of 

Geology, v. 68, p. 54–74.
16 Report Title
Heading 1 17

For additional information write to: 

New York Water Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

425 Jordan Road 

Troy, NY 12180

Information requests:

(518) 285-5602

or visit our Web site at:

http://ny.water.usgs.gov
Mulvihill and Baldigo—Regionalized Equations for Streams in New York State– Hydrologic Region 3 East of the Hudson River—Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5227