JoeFred--Very impressive stuff. I don't always agree with your size ratings (for example, I'd deem Kanati Fork as small rather than tiny--it's fishable for better than a mile) but as you say, they have to be subjective. Ultimately, looking at this from a fisherman's perspective, my interest is primarily in knowing which streams do and do not hold trout. I don't mention any in my book which don't, but by the same token I know there are some small ones holding trout I fail to cover. You've undertaken a massive and ongoing task, as I'm sure you know, and I guess in one sense it is a task which will be never ending. Sort of a similar situation to what Horace Kephart wrote about the outdoors in general--"In the school of the outdoors there is no graduation day."
I do have a couple of thoughts. I wonder if the Park fisheries biologists have a listing of which streams hold trout (or rather, which streams they know to hold them). They have a map showing where they know there are populations of specks and graciously let me use that in my book, but I'm wondering if maybe they have it for other species as well. Of course, the smallest and highest streams tend to be the ones holding mountain trout.
At some point I'll try to find some time to go through, stream by stream, at least for those drainages I know best, and check your size classification. I suspect most ones I might question would be the break between small and tiny. There have to be many hundreds, if not thousands, of branches in the Park.
Anyway, kudos on the fine work and here's one vote for your continuing what I know has to be laborious and time-consuming. Jim Casada