Water Data..USGS ect.

[easternfly]

I try to keep an eye on the water data for my local water. I rarely go out without checking it first. My question is, when I check it I look at the CFM and not the Gauge. What do you check and how to relate the gauge to the flow? I have noticed most of the people I talk to take about the gauge.

Kevin

 

[dryflyguy]

You can use both.
I generally go by the CFS, and think it's probably a bit more of an accurate indicator
However, back in the days before I had a computer, I would check streamflows by the data put out in the local paper. And they just put up the gauge level. So, I got to know what river levels were good for fishing by that reading. And still do so on those certain streams now, just out of habit.

Either way, you still kinda need to fish a certain section of stream at a corresponding level, to know what is good and not good. And that's where experience is the best teacher

 

[hendeylathe]

I use both also. I generally only fish Laurel Hill and the Yough but for some reason I judge Laurel by CFS and the Yough by the gauge level at Ramcat. It's just the way I taught myself to use the USGS data. If I see Laurel Hill running at between 100 to 175 CFS, its dry fly prefect. As long as the Yough is below say 2.6 feet at the Ramcat gauge, I'm going fishing.

 

[redietz]

I always check the CFS. I'm looking to see if there's so much water that it will knock me over, not how deep it is. They're related, but one varies by more than the other.

 

[phiendWMD]

I've checked the USGS site enough for the streams I fish often that I have a good idea how flow translates to height. My local station has more information than most, but I still haven't really learned how a lot of the options affect the fishing, like pH or specific conductance.

If I am discussing the water with other people, I'll use the CFM.

 

[PennKev]

Both measurements are useful, but ultimately they become most useful when you have some first hand experience on a given waterway. You need to know what constitutes a low flow, high flow, flooding, optimal fishing flow, etc. before the numbers tell you anything.

Once you are familiar with a waterway, seeing the flow or height will tell you almost exactly what to expect. Further familiarity with the stream and the USGS data will allow you to predict conditions pretty accurately at a glance.

Also, often a particular stream does not have a gauge but nearby creeks or rivers do. Learning how a creek compares to others in it's area is almost as good as having a stream gauge for that particular water.

For what it's worth, I also rely more on the cubic feet per second data than the gauge height. I just find it easier to visualize and also easier to compare different waterways using the cfs info.

The graphs are also extremely useful. The current flow and height may be ideal for Stream X, but if the graph shows a line rapidly sweeping upwards I know that the stream will soon be too high to fish, for example. or at least I know it may becoming muddy. On the other hand you can tell if a stream should be clearing up after high water. but again, you need to be familiar with the creek to some degree before you can predict these things. One creek may be clear a day after the flows level off, and another creek may be clear three days after flows level off.

 

[Fishidiot]

easternfly wrote:
What do you check and how to relate the gauge to the flow?
Kevin[/b][/i]

I usually check gage height and I relate this mainly through personal experience and observation.

 

[Chaz]

I use CFS and look at it before and after fishing a water. It's very helpful, and if you write it down or make some other recording of how the fishing was and include flow, and weather, you'll have an excellent idea what to expect.
If you look at a gauge height, and it says X# of feet it may not be accurate, because let's just say down stream there is a blockage that isn't always there and it is backing up water, you'll get a false reading. So an ice jam would be one cause, another would be a log jam. This is probably more likely to happen on small to medium sized waters, but ice jams can happen anywhere.

 

[PAgeologist]

The cfs is based upon the gauge height. The USGS creates a rating curve using stream height and actual flow measurements. I would imagine that channel characteristics and some other factors are considered. Actual stream flow measurements are very time intensive.

 

[wildtrout2]

I usually first look at the color of the dots in the area I want to fish, then I look at the stream temps in the immediate area, because my specific streams don't have gauges. To me, stream temps trump flow rates.

 

[afishinado]

PAgeologist wrote:
The cfs is based upon the gauge height. The USGS creates a rating curve using stream height and actual flow measurements. I would imagine that channel characteristics and some other factors are considered. Actual stream flow measurements are very time intensive.

I talked to two people that work for the USGS and actually make the calculations at stream gauges. Exactly as you said above, they take measurements and use the channel characteristics to relate the level of the water at the gauge and convert it a cfs number for that level.

Also, what PennKev posted above is the key. The gauge height and/or the cfs number is most valuable when you can relate the number to actual conditions from fishing there at the time.

I have a lot of gauges for streams and rivers that I look at and have a good idea of what the stream will look like at that level.

If you have never been to stream before, comparing the average level for the date is useful info, but actual experience on the stream or river trumps all.