guesing width of small streams from maps

[pcray1231]

Part of it depends on WHERE in the state it is.

W and NW of the ridge and valley province, on the plateau, stream length is an excellent indicator of how big it is. Streams all start small and grow at a rather consistent rate.

Excepting limestone regions, "catchment" size is probably the better determiner in the ridge and valley province, such as the pocono's. That can be tricky, though. Unlike plateau regions, which are virtually 100% sloped so it's easy to tell, there's lots of flat area. Fairly large streams sometimes "appear" virtually out of nowhere. They're catchment basins are actually appropriately large, but that's not so apparant from a topo map. That large flat ridge drains into 7 different streams, all of which don't seem to start to form valleys until the ridgeline.

Also, in very rocky terrain, on steeper slopes much of the water flow may actually be underground, in the rocks and rubble, rather than on the surface. Meaning flow is actually much larger than what it apepars when you walk along it. Likewise, small streams can sometimes fish bigger than they are, if they have large pools. I call it the bathtub effect. You can have a trickle or a torrent between "bathtubs", but the size of the bathtub is often what matters.

And in limestone, things are are really weird. Water can sink, flow underground, go underneath one stream and emerge in the next one over! Full fledged rivers can emerge out of nowhere, with seemingly tiny watersheds.

 

[k-bob]

doesn't take much water to produce fishable pools on a stream with 7.5%+ elevation change over a half mi...

 

[troutbert]

Another thing you can look at, for rough guess-timation, is the length of streams, as shown on the USGS topo maps, which are available online at AcmeMapper and other sites.

Look up some of the brookie streams you fished, including some where you had good fishing, and some that you thought were too small.

Then look how far down from the top you were when fishing, and you'll start to get some idea of what stream length produces a stream that is just way too small, or a size you consider worth fishing.

So much depends on the quality of the physical habitat, i.e. pools and cover. Even very small streams can produce nice brookies, if they have very good pools.

But generally my "cutoff" between trickles and streams worth fishing is somewhere around 1.5 miles to 2 miles long.

 

[k-bob]

yeah I like that acmemapper a lot of maps fast, and reminds me of the roadrunner

 

[dryflyguy]

I also target streams that are longer with more branches feeding them in remote areas.
Another thing that can be a plus for hot weather trouting - the PA Delorme shows many springs along small streams, that would help with keeping flows up

 

[Stone_Fly]

Forgive Me Tups, but to me catchment and watershed are the same thing. One other thing they are within the anthracite region. There's mining all around the area.

 

[Stone_Fly]

Given where they are, I wouldn't bet against them all being about the same width and flow.

 

[wildtrout2]

dryflyguy wrote:
I also target streams that are longer with more branches feeding them in remote areas.

Stream length and remoteness are BIG factors in me choosing a stream to fish. Also, that Pa DeLorme Atlas and topos are some of my main tools for detail.

 

[Tups]

Stone Fly: Fair enough. As I said, most of us prefer the term "watershed" over "catchment," or at least we are more familiar with watershed. In any case, I just wanted to make sure that the readers understood I was talking about "area" (sq. miles) as opposed to a boundary delineation.

dryflyguy: The more branches (tribs.) that feed a stream, the larger its catchment area will be, and the greater its flow will be. Each of the streams in question is a first order stream, meaning it has no branches, but only a single channel. Each is a first order trib. to the catawissa.

When two first order streams join, they form a second order stream. When 2 second order streams join, they form a third order stream, and so on.

 

[JackM]

Tups wrote:
When 2 second order streams join, they form a third order stream, and so on.

So, I wonder what you call it when a second order stream merges with a first order stream?

 

[Foxgap239]

JackM wrote:

Tups wrote:
When 2 second order streams join, they form a third order stream, and so on.

So, I wonder what you call it when a second order stream merges with a first order stream?

According to Rosenbauer's book, it is still a second order stream.

 

[Stone_Fly]

pcray1231 wrote:
Part of it depends on WHERE in the state it is.

W and NW of the ridge and valley province, on the plateau, stream length is an excellent indicator of how big it is. Streams all start small and grow at a rather consistent rate.

Excepting limestone regions, "catchment" size is probably the better determiner in the ridge and valley province, such as the pocono's. That can be tricky, though. Unlike plateau regions, which are virtually 100% sloped so it's easy to tell, there's lots of flat area. Fairly large streams sometimes "appear" virtually out of nowhere. They're catchment basins are actually appropriately large, but that's not so apparant from a topo map. That large flat ridge drains into 7 different streams, all of which don't seem to start to form valleys until the ridgeline.

Also, in very rocky terrain, on steeper slopes much of the water flow may actually be underground, in the rocks and rubble, rather than on the surface. Meaning flow is actually much larger than what it apepars when you walk along it. Likewise, small streams can sometimes fish bigger than they are, if they have large pools. I call it the bathtub effect. You can have a trickle or a torrent between "bathtubs", but the size of the bathtub is often what matters.

And in limestone, things are are really weird. Water can sink, flow underground, go underneath one stream and emerge in the next one over! Full fledged rivers can emerge out of nowhere, with seemingly tiny watersheds.

It is just west of Hazleton, PA, I believe it's R and V Province, in the anthracite region.

 

[Stone_Fly]

Tups wrote:
Stone Fly: Fair enough. As I said, most of us prefer the term "watershed" over "catchment," or at least we are more familiar with watershed. In any case, I just wanted to make sure that the readers understood I was talking about "area" (sq. miles) as opposed to a boundary delineation.

dryflyguy: The more branches (tribs.) that feed a stream, the larger its catchment area will be, and the greater its flow will be. Each of the streams in question is a first order stream, meaning it has no branches, but only a single channel. Each is a first order trib. to the catawissa.

When two first order streams join, they form a second order stream. When 2 second order streams join, they form a third order stream, and so on.

Fair enough Tups. I though it was interesting that none of those streams had tributaries. Usually streams that flow a couple of miles will have a couple of small tribs.

 

[Tups]

Jack: A 2nd order stream can't technically flow into a 1st order stream, rather a 1st order will always flow into a larger order stream, not necessarily a 2nd order. In a case where a 1st order flows into a 2nd order, the 2nd order remains a 2nd order stream. The 1st order has no bearing on the 2nd order stream's designation. However, where a 2nd order intersects with another 2nd order, the stream becomes a 3rd order. When a 2nd order flows into a 3rd order, the 3rd order remains a 3rd order. etc.

I believe this system of nomenclature was devised by a geologist named Strahler in the 1950's. It's simply a way to identify streams as they flow down from the mountaintop, or highest elevation. It can't tell us anything about the absolute size or structure of the stream. In the Ridge and Valley and Alleghany Plateau provinces in PA, a 1st order stream is usually a step-across channel. In the Rocky Mtns, a first order might be 20 or 30 feet wide. It's all relative to the landscape.

 

[Tups]

I'm not a geologist, but the near-vertical walls immediately adjacent to the north side of each channel, suggests that the stream channels lie in geological faults or joints. Where is that fellow with the elk avatar when you need him?

 

[k-bob]

I only remember fishing klingermans in the winter -- don't believe I have been there in the summer to see if there is water.

 

[Tups]

How high up did you fish Klingermanns? You must have started at the road at the base of the ridge. Does the character of the stream change much as you increase in altitude?

K-bob, I could go on for days talking about stream morphology, but I realize others might get their fill pretty quickly. If that's the case, just ignore me. Thanks.

 

[k-bob]

I believe I only saw the stream at about 950 to 1000 ft elevation. discussion is interesting. I have never hiked further up one of these tiny streams to see what the combination of less water but higher elevation produces: small pools or water gurgling under rocks?

 

[Heberly]

I live 15 minutes from Klingaman's run. It's shown on my map as Klingaman's however I think it is in fact Klingerman's based on the Klingerman family heritage in the Mainville area. The lower half of Klingerman's was posted, or private land for some time, I think it still is? Furnace run, If I am recalling the name correctly, is clipped off the edge of your map, and is quite longer, and also contains a mild population of brook trout. Both are very tight quarters. A better option, would be to explore scotch run. Ten years ago, it was a fine native stream, really fine. However, its been stocked over, and developed near its headwaters as Hazleton starts to sprawl. As a side note, there is signage going up around the town of Catawissa, which states " you are now entering the Catawissa Creek watershed, home of a future blue ribbon trout stream".

 

[pcray1231]

The whole first order vs. second order thing very much depends on your definition of "stream". Even first order streams usually have little rivlets flowing down into them. Those likely have seeps coming into them, etc... After a rain there are many more streams than there were before the rain. Does a 1st order become second order after a thunderstorm? lol.

Is the definition based on permanent vs. temporary?

As far as watershed area vs. catchment area, in MOST cases they are the same. There are exceptions, especially in limestone regions. There are regions which are not within the watershed, but are within the catchment of a stream. i.e. surface watershed vs. ground watershed is a way to think of it. There are places where the surface water and groundwater flow in opposite directions.

An example of this is Scotia Barrens SW of State College (SGL 176). The surface water flows SW into Spruce Creek, so it's in the Spruce Creek watershed. However, the water that enters the ground flows NE and emerges at Big Spring in Bellefonte, so it is in the Spring Creek catchment.