Anybody fish the Lower Vag Hollow Run?

[The Rodfather]

I have a buddy up in Potter County for a few more days and he noticed this off the beaten path run that is a designated stream. Wondering if anybody has fished it or knows what to expect as far as species in the stream?

 

[jifigz]

I've never fished it, and I've never heard of it until now, but it's probably gonna be mostly brookies with some browns thrown in. Or maybe it's all browns. Just go fish it.

 

[wildtrout2]

There aren't too many streams up in Potter that don't have at least some wild trout in them. Your best bet is to simply give it a try.

 

[Swattie87]

This thread has to be a joke.

If it’s not, and if there’s surface flow year round, that stream is beyond tiny. You’re talking like a 1 sq mile watershed.

 

[jifigz]

This thread has to be a joke.

If it’s not, and if there’s surface flow year round, that stream is beyond tiny. You’re talking like a 1 sq mile watershed.

You obviously put in more research than I did. I just checked to see if it's on the Nat Reproduction, and it is.

 

[The Rodfather]

No joke, it's a tributary of the Sinnemahoning Creek. PFBC says it's a natural producing stream, he was just curious. Gonna fish it hard for a couple days to find out. Hopefully yall are right and he runs into some brookies.

 

[Swattie87]

No joke, it's a tributary of the Sinnemahoning Creek. PFBC says it's a natural producing stream, he was just curious. Gonna fish it hard for a couple days to find out. Hopefully yall are right and he runs into some brookies.

I know it’s a real stream. Trib of E. Fork Sinnemahoning actually. I’ve driven E. Fork Rd. over it many times and never even recall being able to see it. It’s not gonna take you a couple days to figure it out. A simple look see from E. Fork Rd. will illustrate what I mean. It may not even have water in it this time of year. It’s that small.

 

[Swattie87]

Here’s some math. The USGS gauge on E. Fork is basically just upstream of the mouth of Lower Vag Hollow (LVH). At the gauge site, the E. Fork watershed is 49.2 square miles, and is flowing at a whopping 8 CFS. LVH has a watershed of about 1 sq mile. Some simple arithmetic suggests that assuming relatively equal rainfall over that area, LVH would be contributing about 0.16 CFS of flow right now comparatively based on its watershed size. Or roughly about the same flow I’m capable of contributing after a 6er of Busch Latte.😜

 

[wildtrout2]

Here’s some math. The USGS gauge on E. Fork is basically just upstream of the mouth of Lower Vag Hollow (LVH). At the gauge site, the E. Fork watershed is 49.2 square miles, and is flowing at a whopping 8 CFS. LVH has a watershed of about 1 sq mile. Some simple arithmetic suggests that assuming relatively equal rainfall over that area, LVH would be contributing about 0.16 CFS of flow right now comparatively based on its watershed size. Or roughly about the same flow I’m capable of contributing after a 6er of Busch Latte.😜

And, there's no future in second guessing Swattie's math.

 

[jifigz]

If there's water, I'd still cast into it as long as it's cold. What the hell, right? I certainly wouldn't travel to cast into it, but since it's right there for your buddy..

 

[hooker-of-men]

Here’s some math. The USGS gauge on E. Fork is basically just upstream of the mouth of Lower Vag Hollow (LVH). At the gauge site, the E. Fork watershed is 49.2 square miles, and is flowing at a whopping 8 CFS. LVH has a watershed of about 1 sq mile. Some simple arithmetic suggests that assuming relatively equal rainfall over that area, LVH would be contributing about 0.16 CFS of flow right now comparatively based on its watershed size. Or roughly about the same flow I’m capable of contributing after a 6er of Busch Latte.😜

Mostly tangential and probably dumb question: how do you go about calculating watershed size? Just eyeballing a map and how far out tribs in a specific range extend? I'm guessing there's a more precise method at play given the specificity of 49.2 sq miles.

 

[Swattie87]

Mostly tangential and probably dumb question: how do you go about calculating watershed size? Just eyeballing a map and how far out tribs in a specific range extend? I'm guessing there's a more precise method at play given the specificity of 49.2 sq miles.

The 49.2 is listed on the USGS site for E. Fork. It’s listed for each gauge. It represents the watershed upstream of the gauge location. Clearly, many streams don’t have gauges on them though.

As to this particular thread and LVH, yeah, just eyeballing it on a topo map. There’s also some mapping softwares out there that will let you trace the watershed area on a topo map and then give you the surface area. But eventually you get pretty good at eyeballing it. I bet my margin of error is 20% or less most of the time, which for practical purposes is close enough.

There used to be a list published by Lycoming College of each stream in PA’s watershed size, listed alphabetically, but the link I have to it is dead. Haven’t found it if they’ve moved it. Would’ve shared it here otherwise.

I’m a small stream guy, but if it’s less than 5 sq miles or so, I don’t usually bother with a stream, unless it’s really really steep. High gradient streams seem bigger than they actually are. LVH doesn’t appear all that steep on the topo.

 

[hooker-of-men]

The 49.2 is listed on the USGS site for E. Fork. It’s listed for each gauge. It represents the watershed upstream of the gauge location. Clearly, many streams don’t have gauges on them though.

As to this particular thread and LVH, yeah, just eyeballing it on a topo map. There’s also some mapping softwares out there that will let you trace the watershed area on a topo map and then give you the surface area. But eventually you get pretty good at eyeballing it. I bet my margin of error is 20% or less most of the time, which for practical purposes is close enough.

There used to be a list published by Lycoming College of each stream in PA’s watershed size, listed alphabetically, but the link I have to it is dead. Haven’t found it if they’ve moved it. Would’ve shared it here otherwise.

I’m a small stream guy, but if it’s less than 5 sq miles or so, I don’t usually bother with a stream, unless it’s really really steep. High gradient streams seem bigger than they actually are. LVH doesn’t appear all that steep on the topo.

Thanks! I've never put any consideration into evaluating streams on the map from this perspective, but it seems very useful for my area.