SFR New USGS Graph Gripe

[DerekWhipple]

I rely on CFS unless the river is really stable. A flood event or stream obstruction can give a different CFS for the same height reading.

Edit: I meant to say that a check measurement after an event might cause the CFS to change for a given height.

 

[PhilR]

yeah, that's a pain, even though cfs is generated by a formula, using stage. I still think in terms of CFS to think about how much water is that....

 

[Matt B]

There's turbidity readings now? Geez, I missed that.

Only a relative few across the state. It's a real pain to maintain any turbidity logger.

 

[skyrise]

Always river levels in height 1st, then flow. Now they have temp readings on the new version. Ok I guess at least for summer. Have not seen turbidity yet ? Nice I guess but like hight & flow ya still gotta see it in person. Wonder what the reading for Monroe would have been this morning. River color brown and at least 3 trees coming down river at Lewis street around 8:30 this morning.

 

[Shad]

Yeah... turbidity seems to be reserved for larger rivers in general. Based on what I saw today, I would estimate that about 50 formazin nephelometric units (FNU) is about the upper limit of what I would consider "decent" visibility, but there is more to learn, no doubt.

 

[_WW_]

Yeah... turbidity seems to be reserved for larger rivers in general. Based on what I saw today, I would estimate that about 50 formazin nephelometric units (FNU) is about the upper limit of what I would consider "decent" visibility, but there is more to learn, no doubt.

You seem somewhat versed in turbidity. What about the color of the turbidity? The Sauk can run to a white-blue-gray while right now the Skagit is brown. Would the same readings mean different fishing conditions depending on color?

 

[Pescaphile]

You seem somewhat versed in turbidity. What about the color of the turbidity? The Sauk can run to a white-blue-gray while right now the Skagit is brown. Would the same readings mean different fishing conditions depending on color?

Turbidity is independent of color. It's just a measurement of scattered light. I've seen samples with a lot of bubbles throw off turbidity measurements because the bubbles would scatter light resulting in a reading that was erroneously high. Turbidity readings do highly correlate with suspended particulates which is pretty easy to see (pun?) and why turbidity measurements are used in the field unlike actual tests for suspended solids which need lab work.

True color results from chemicals dissolved in the water and may make water pretty dark and difficult to see to much depth even though turbidity levels may be very low, e.g., < 1 NTU. The tannin-stained waters that look like tea that you see in some of the smaller coastal streams are a good example of true color in water.

As to your question about turbid waters showing brown vs white-blue-gray I think the latter (glacially-influenced waters) do fish better better in higher turbidity levels. If I had to hazard a guess I'd say it's because it's more a more normal condition. In these systems turbidity will generally be higher at normal water levels and often even increase at lower water levels (except sustained freezing) as glacial melt makes up a higher percentage of the flow. Turbid brown waters are more often associated with an increased wash load occurring from runoff in high water events.

 

[Shad]

You seem somewhat versed in turbidity. What about the color of the turbidity? The Sauk can run to a white-blue-gray while right now the Skagit is brown. Would the same readings mean different fishing conditions depending on color?

LOL.

Well, so far, the extent of my turbidity knowledge and research begins and ends with what very little I learned yesterday, so yeah, I'm pretty much an expert... NOT. I see my use of the scientific unit name in my post had the unintended but always welcome consequence of making me look like I know what I'm talking about. But alas....

Excellent thought on glacial influence; I bet the "normal" turbidity on glacial streams is something slightly less than the 50 FNU I cited yesterday. My observations were based on a generally clear river with some (but little) glacial influence. Colors? My brain can't handle that factor yet....

 

[Smalma]

WW-

While the light scatter may be the same with brown and white-blue-gray water I much rather fish the white-blue-gray water. My own experience (certainly non-scientific) I'm more successful in the glacial colored water, which I attributed to my flies contrasting better thus my flies are more visible to the fish.
]
However just to confuse the situation on the Skagit during the summer thanks to the Chocolate glacier the glacial run-off will have a definite "brown" color which again I feel tends to fish better than the brown color normal associated with the general run-off/flooding that we associate with heavy rains. have to wonder if that has something to do with the particle size associated with each situation. The glacial run-off is typically relatively small rock particles with the rain driven material includes such things as organic material, etc.

Curt

 

[Lake flyer]

Here in the Great Lakes we use turbidity a lot be ause of how muddy our rivers can get. Turbidity value of 11 or less gives us at least 8” of visibility, which is pretty fishable swinging larger flies.

 

[rattlesnake]

Depending on the waterway - bigger river I use ft since my considerations are less sensitive to flow. On smaller waterways it’s cfs.

Either way I was good with the old usgs format so of course I hate this change.

Edit: but I’ll get over it, esp since it’s a free site that yields me helpful info

 

[Old Man]

When I lived and fished in Washington, I always checked the flows in nice weather. So when I read the web site I would know when to go or when to not go., Here in Montana I only go when the body and brain get together and the sun is warm on my back. If it's raining I don't go even if it's warm out. I don't like fishing in wet clothes. It's like sleeping with your socks on.

 

[JohnB]

I want to complain about the extra steps one must take for USGS gauge data, specifically CFS vs mean CFS. This was a one click per river operation before.

Now I have to click 3 times, which is small but when checking a bunch of water it’s frustrating. Who the heck defaults gauges to ft readings.

“Hey Bob let’s float at 13.5 to 14.25ft”
“Are you sure looks like the river is at 14.15ft now?”

SAYS NOBODY EVER

If you save the USGS sites as a bookmark and navigate to them that way it works much better. The URL changes once you click over to CFS from gage height. Bookmark the CFS URL and you are set.

 

[Rio Grande King]

Maybe the next update will allow different units? Discharge in Miner's Inches perhaps?

African or European swallow?

A miner’s inch does not represent a fixed and definite quantity of water, being measured generally by an arbitrary standard of the various ditch companies.

For this reason, a miner’s inch is 0.020 cfs (1/50th of a cfs) in Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, South and North Dakota, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and southern California.

In northern California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, and Montana, a miners inch equals 0.025 cfs (1/40th of a cfs) , while in Colorado it equals 0.026 cfs (1/38th of a cfs). The value of a miner’s inch can vary by locality, so most western states have established the value by statute.

 

[Tom Butler]

African or European swallow?

A miner’s inch does not represent a fixed and definite quantity of water, being measured generally by an arbitrary standard of the various ditch companies.

For this reason, a miner’s inch is 0.020 cfs (1/50th of a cfs) in Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, South and North Dakota, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and southern California.

In northern California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, and Montana, a miners inch equals 0.025 cfs (1/40th of a cfs) , while in Colorado it equals 0.026 cfs (1/38th of a cfs). The value of a miner’s inch can vary by locality, so most western states have established the value by statute.

I was just teaching US and metric conversions this morning. Oregon has an international foot and Washington has the US survey foot. Not the statatory definitions but basically:

3.28083333333 US survey feet per meter
	3.28083989501 International feet per meter

 

[Mossback]

African or European swallow?

A miner’s inch does not represent a fixed and definite quantity of water, being measured generally by an arbitrary standard of the various ditch companies.

For this reason, a miner’s inch is 0.020 cfs (1/50th of a cfs) in Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, South and North Dakota, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and southern California.

In northern California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, and Montana, a miners inch equals 0.025 cfs (1/40th of a cfs) , while in Colorado it equals 0.026 cfs (1/38th of a cfs). The value of a miner’s inch can vary by locality, so most western states have established the value by statute.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail: Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow

Could an unladen swallow carry a coconut or what is the airspeed velocity of a swallow? You can find the answers here.

interestingengineering.com

 

[_WW_]

For some reason I expected a definition of a Miner's inch to include the word 'Bordello'.

 

[Pescaphile]

I was just teaching US and metric conversions this morning. Oregon has an international foot and Washington has the US survey foot. Not the statatory definitions but basically:

3.28083333333 US survey feet per meter
	3.28083989501 International feet per meter

Then there's Whitworth size bolts if you really want to confuse them. You might push it too far though if you say anything about grid vs. ground distance.