Potential stream surveying / reconnaissance

[mute]

When using multiple public sources like satellite maps, property maps and state provided stream information. How do you gauge sizes\characteristics of waterways you're trying to determine to scout? I have a pretty overly complex method I use that combines a handful of different data sources, which I then cross reference different ways for probability of success and accuracy. Along with access being figured out with everything all analyzed and detailed from the start of the drive, to the parking and the path\access in and out. Knowing the public limits, any private property limits, walk arounds, etc.

There usually are multiple blue lines in very close vicinities to another when going to check them out, which i usually bake into my plan. However sometimes you dont have the time or efficiency to check them all out as one could be a half days effort in its self. How do you attempt to determine the possible sizes and even characteristics of possible prospects? A body of water thats noted to support trout that's maybe assumed\hoped to be a larger 10-15 feet wide stream. Is a little disappointing when hiking in and while it still being "fishy", ends up being mostly unfishable and a 3 feet wide trickle.

I'm looing for any tips, tricks or science to try to determine sizes of actual waterways while in front of the computer before starting the physical trek in order to isolate and determine up front which ones are worth that days efforts and expectations.

 

[just_jon]

I have been thinking about getting a drone for just such explorations. Being a bike to hike into one watershed and scout multiple tribs or adjacent watersheds without having to walk them would be a major time saver.

 

[troutbert]

I just look at topo maps on Acmemapper.com.

You can see how much stream channel length and drainage area is above where you're considering fishing.

I don't try to quantify this with actual drainage area or stream mileage numbers.

With some experience you can just look at a topo map and get a rough idea of stream size.

I'm talking about freestone streams here. LImestone streams can emerge from springs as decent sized streams.

 

[wildtrout2]

I always wondered about this myself. You can rely on maps for length, but not for depth/width of a given stream. It reminds me of the time I really went out of my way to fish Ferney Run in Clinton County, hoping it was a remote gem. What attracted me here was the 4.5 mile length and remoteness of the stream, which was listed as Class A/brook trout. I drove miles down a very tight dirt road to access it, only to find it wasn't much more than a trickle that you could hop accross.

I did catch a few very small natives, but for the time and effort I put in, I was pretty disappointed. Live and learn.

 

[5footfenwick]

Not sure but I’ll take a stab at it. Rough estimate here.

(Stream length in miles) X ( times 2) = stream width in feet

So…..

If you are fishing 3 feet wide streams I assume they are like a mile to 1.5 miles long.

3 mile streams 6- ish feet wide

5 mile streams 10-ish feet wide

7 mile stream 15-ish feet wide

Plus add the tribs for width downstream of confluences maybe? Not sure.

All of this is just a guess and estimates. Obviously a lot of time the size will vary.

On a side note.
Any thing that is is even 1 foot wide is worth the effort for me.

 

[mute]

Not sure but I’ll take a stab at it. Rough estimate here.

(Stream length in miles) X ( times 2) = stream width in feet

So…..

If you are fishing 3 feet wide streams I assume they are like a mile to 1.5 miles long.

3 mile streams 6- ish feet wide

5 mile streams 10-ish feet wide

7 mile stream 15-ish feet wide

Plus add the tribs for width downstream of confluences maybe? Not sure.

All of this is just a guess and estimates. Obviously a lot of time the size will vary.

On a side note.
Any thing that is is even 1 foot wide is worth the effort for me.

Accomodations of tribs make the most logical sense. More tribs upstream, theorhetically more water below them i guess.

On a side note.
Any thing that is is even 1 foot wide is worth the effort for me.

While my passion also makes this statement true. I dont agree with it in the scenario sense. If im looking to get into the potential of some bigger averaged sized brown trout, and expect to do so using euro tactics and a 10ft rod. Then a one foot trickle of water thats smothered in rhodo holding YOY brookies that took an hour bushwacking isnt going to satisfy.

 

[Bamboozle]

I only got screwed once hiking up to find the headwaters of Wolf Swamp Run...

The lesson I learned that day is reconnoiter new places when going to fish OLD places so the day is never a total bust.

Also, if possible look at the MOUTH of a new stream first. If the mouth is tiny, expect the sections further up to be trickles.

But factoring in all of the places I've reconnoitered over the years and only ONCE having a wasted effort; the thought of doing a whole lot more additional research or investing in something like a drone isn't worth it to me...

 

[mute]

I only got screwed once hiking up to find the headwaters of Wolf Swamp Run...

Lol thank you for that. Thats one thats been on my list in that area, among others.

Also, if possible look at the MOUTH of a new stream first. If the mouth is tiny, expect the sections further up to be trickles.

Also logical. will put that in my future plans.

Ill be going up to the Wilkes barre area and heres an example of one of two UNT tribs going into Harveys creek. I would of expected it to be atleast a few times bigger.

 

[troutbert]

I know of a stream that is only 3000 feet long, as measured by the stream line on a topo map. It does have a few brook trout in the lower end, but it goes mostly dry in the summer. I've made a few casts there, but it's not really worth fishing.

The stream that it flows into becomes worth fishing about 1 mile down from its origin. It's actually pretty good there, because it has good habitat. It's not been channelized and has pools and cover from tree roots, leaning trees, and downed trees. I've caught brook trout to 9 inches there. This far upstream it's all brookies. About 2 miles down it's mixed brookies and browns.

Stream size isn't everything. Some streams are good sized, but basically unfishable because they are choked with rhododendron. Swamp streams are sometimes choked with alders.

 

[wildtrout2]

Also, if possible look at the MOUTH of a new stream first. If the mouth is tiny, expect the sections further up to be trickles.

That is some sound advice. And, very true more often than not.

 

[Bamboozle]

Lol thank you for that. Thats one thats been on my list in that area, among others....

Wolf Swamp Run is barely worth it no matter where you access. It is one of most if not THE most rhododendron choked streams I ever fished and I fished it with a 5'0" 3wt rod!!!

The old growth rhododendron is so thick, especially above the mouth that I walked upstream backwards so I could use my back to push it out of the way!!

Oh I found a few pockets here and there and caught a few fish, but it totally sucked for the effort and sucked big time getting off as well.

Good thing I had a GPS with me or I STILL might be there!!

 

[wildtrout2]

There's a particular, very small trib to one of my favorite wild brown trout streams, that I keep telling myself I'll explore regardless of it's small size. I fantasize that as I follow it up the mountain, which is quite steep, I'll come to that one nice size plunge pool that holds a really nice native, or wild brown. Maybe this season...

 

[Millsertime]

I "fished" Wolf Swamp Run once. Won't ever again unless a forest fire ravages all that rhodo

Side note....The single track around WSR is excellent for Mtn biking.

I rarely leave Monroe / Carbon counties for trout fishing unless it's a "known" stream like Penns/Spring WB/Pine/Cumberland Vly/etc...but when searching trout waters I try to find Google bridge street views to see the water, topo maps to see how steep it is, and is it 1st/2nd/3rd order stream. Google photos/reviews shows pictures/intel a lot of times as well to give you an idea.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Drainage area is a better predictor for stream size than length for freestoners.

Also some watersheds the tribs have a tendency to go subsurface close to the mouth, have big alluvial fans, waterfalls or other geological features that make the stream look tiny. But if you go upstream a hundred yards it might be very different and appealing from a fishing perspective.

Channel width also isn't everything. I know of a few 2nd order streams that look awesome on a map, have a drainage area and gradient that appeals to me, but have very little pool habitat. As a result they aren't fun for me to fish along with having very small fish.

There are a lot of tools to dial in what you like when scouting online, but boots on the ground is often needed for confirmation.

 

[Swattie87]

You’re on the right track Mute.

It’s never an exact science and the more you practice it and pick up on, the more you can apply looking for those same characteristics in other places.

For me, first off, I essentially only look at streams accessible on public land. So that simplifies things a little bit for me. Am I missing out on some good streams on privately owned, but open to fishing, land because of that? Yeah, probably, but I work full time, and don’t want to deal with private land access/trespassing issues with the relatively limited time I have to fish.

One thing I look at very closely is watershed size and gradient, and the relationship between the two in making a stream of fishable size. From my experience, a stream with a watershed size of at least 5 square miles will make a fishable sized stream. My favorites are usually a little bigger than that though. Say 10-25 square miles or so. Under 5 square miles you really also need to look at the gradient of the stream. Use a topo map for this. A relatively flat stream of that size will likely be too small to be much fun fishing. But, a steep one will likely be of fishable size. Gradient is deceiving. Enough gradient can make a tiny stream seem much bigger than it really is. I know a few small streams that have relatively short sections with high gradient where they drop really fast and make some nice fishable water. You get above or below those sections and are shocked when you realize how little water is actually there.

One caveat, the above can be applied pretty consistently to freestone streams, which I assume is what we’re mostly talking about here. Limestone streams this doesn’t work as well on as their aquifers are very complicated and they can sink and reappear from large springs, and the surface flow can vary wildly from one section to another. Freestone streams, with some rare exceptions, get bigger at a pretty consistent rate as they flow downstream and pick up more watershed size.

As to the rhodo issues, it’s tough to know whether a stream is a rhodo-tunnel until you get there and actually explore it, but, the more you explore different areas, the more you start to learn that rhodo is more prevalent in some areas of the state than others. The Poconos and the Rothrock and Bald Eagle SF areas tend to have a lot of it for example. Potter/Clinton/Tioga/Lycoming, not so much.

Still nothing beats boots on the ground. Pick an area from your research and have 3 or 4 options, like you mentioned. More than likely at least one of them will pan out. Then apply what you learned to the next area you want to check out.

 

[troutbert]

If im looking to get into the potential of some bigger averaged sized brown trout, and expect to do so using euro tactics and a 10ft rod.

Euro tactics and a 10 foot rod don't fit very well with freestone wild trout fishing in PA.

 

[Swattie87]

Euro tactics and a 10 foot rod don't fit very well with freestone wild trout fishing in PA.

Some guys (not me) definitely can make this work. Watch some of the “Lively Legz” crew or “Allegheny Native” videos on YT. They’re fishing small streams, some of which you’ll probably recognize, with 10’ or longer rods and Euro tactics and clean up. Not for me, but if motivated to do it, and like anything else you practice at it, it can be done.

 

[jifigz]

I always wondered about this myself. You can rely on maps for length, but not for depth/width of a given stream. It reminds me of the time I really went out of my way to fish Ferney Run in Clinton County, hoping it was a remote gem. What attracted me here was the 4.5 mile length and remoteness of the stream, which was listed as Class A/brook trout. I drove miles down a very tight dirt road to access it, only to find it wasn't much more than a trickle that you could hop accross.

I did catch a few very small natives, but for the time and effort I put in, I was pretty disapointed.

Been there, done that. Different stream but.....talk about a let down. And I like small waters. Some waters are just too small, though.

 

[Tups]

Swattie and I have stumbled upon the same exact methodology for assessing small stream fish-ability at the desk top level of analysis. Catchment ( aka watershed) area is the most important factor, besides public accessibility. A catchment size of 5 square miles is the minimum size for fishability. But you can’t get a handle on habitat quality until you get boots on the ground.
However, if the catchment is less than 5 square miles, I won’t make the trip because the effort involved in getting there is not worth battling the overhanging vegetation and the tiny fish size likely to be encountered. Still, even if a prospective stream meets the size criterion, the habitat may be poor or the Rhododendron or alders maybe an issue. There are no guarantees. I find that the 5 square miles criterion works in both the Ridge and Valley and Allegheny Plateau provinces in PA.

 

[troutbert]

How do you measure the square mileage?