Gasconade Hazelgreen Discharge Rate

[Bob in MO]

Thanks everyone for your time and efforts. 🙂

Thanks Al, that's pretty much exactly what I was looking for.

[Al Agnew]

On 7/28/2022 at 10:18 PM, fishinwrench said:

Many streams are perfectly floatable and fishable at much less than 100cfs.  

I didn't think the question was... "At what flow rate will I not have to worry about touching a rock?"

400 cfs on NFOW is way different than 400 cfs on Tavern cr.  But both are pleasantly fishable/floatable at 2' guage heights.    Nobody wants to fish Tavern cr. or the little Niangua at 400 cfs......But the NFOW?  SURE! 

Whatever works for you is fine 👍, I was just sharing my personal "ignorant boat mechanic" method.   

On a river with multiple guage sites the CFS increases as you travel downstream, as does the guage height.  And since they never place guages on a loosing section of a river......I feel that you can accurately feel out what conditions you are going to be faced with at any given time.  As long as you realize that "0" at a guage site is going to be bone dry along any loosing section.   

Water moving underground is still moving...... but you darn sure can't fish it.  Right?  And if you're not familiar with the river there's no guarantee that the water will reappear in the same ditch.  

I'm not even sure how CFS is accurately monitored...... But I know exactly how guage height is monitored, we all learned that in the 3rd grade of elementary school.  So no calculous or algebra tests ever needed to be passed......Which is good, cuz I failed them all. 😉

Wrench, that's not really how gage height works.  Every gage is different when it comes to gage height.  0 is not necessarily bone dry, and gage height doesn't necessarily increase as you go downstream, nor does a level of 2 feet on one gage have any relationship whatsoever to 2 feet on a different gage on the same river, let alone other rivers.  Let's take the Meramec River system.  There are six gages on stream sections that are floatable part of the year but can get too low to float.  Here are the gage heights corresponding to the median (normal) flow for today on each, and what 100 cfs, my rule of thumb for floatability, equals on each:

Meramec, Cook Station--median 24.0 cfs, equals 1.65 feet.  100 cfs equals 2.51 feet.

Huzzah--median 93 cfs, equals 2.17 feet.  100 cfs equals 2.21 feet.

Bourbeuse, High Gate--median 2.4 cfs, equals 3.14 feet.  100 cfs equals 4.61 feet.

Bourbeuse, Union--median 80 cfs, equals 2.03 feet.  100 cfs equals 2.13 feet.

Big, Irondale--median 17 cfs, equals 0.78 feet.  100 cfs equals 1.73 feet.

Big, Desloge--median 81 cfs, equals 3.77 feet.  100 cfs equals 3.9 feet.

Now...there are four gages on the most fishable jetboatable stretches.  Here are the median comparisons and what the flow at 500 cfs equals for them:

Meramec, steelville--median 186 cfs, equals 1.36 feet.  500 cfs equals 4.39 feet.

Meramec, Sullivan--median 391 cfs, equals 2.8 feet.  500 cfs equals 3.02 feet.

Meramec, Pacific--median 951 cfs, equals MINUS 0.9 feet.  500 cfs equals MINUS 1.6 feet.

Big, Richwoods--median 187 cfs, equals 2.36 feet.  500 cfs equals 3.41 feet. 

So as you can see, the level in feet corresponding to similar flows is all over the map.  If I knew that my home river, Big at Desloge, is good floating and fishing this time of year at 3.9 feet, (which corresponds to 100 cfs), and tried to use that number for, say the Bourbeuse at Union, 3.9 feet would be almost 2 feet above normal for that stretch of river.  And on the Huzzah, 3.9 feet would be 1.8 feet above normal.  Yet all three stream stretches are similar in size and normal flow rate.  Note also that just on the Meramec, normal level at Cook Station is 1.65 feet, at Steelville (next downstream) it's 1.36 feet, at Sullivan 2.8 feet, at Pacific -0.9 feet.  There is nothing like increasing gage heights the farther downstream you go.

Fact is that gage height is always an arbitrary figure.  They stick the pipe in with the float inside it that measures and reports gage height, and all they do (usually) is make sure that the bottom of the pipe, corresponding to zero, is well below the normal river level.  They don't care how far below it is, that doesn't matter.  And if a flood changes the river bottom there, the bottom of the pipe might be deeper in the water or covered in gravel.

You can find out all these figures in each river gage page, under "Current stage-discharge rating".  It will give you the table that they use for each gage that shows the flow in cfs that corresponds to each increment of gage height.  And that table will be completely different for every gage.

As for some streams being very floatable at a lot less than 100 cfs, it depends upon what you consider floatable, I guess.  But on every stream I've floated at flows well under 100 cfs, I was scraping bottom on a lot of the riffles and walking a few, or many.  And I do a LOT of floating bony water.  The 100 cfs figure holds true on the following rivers, for sure:  Little Piney, Big above Washington State Park, Bourbeuse, Meramec above Maramec Spring, Huzzah, Castor, Big Creek, St. Francis, upper James, Beaver, and Jacks Fork.  Doesn't mean I won't float any of them at lower flows...I've floated Big River at Irondale at 7 cfs, Jacks Fork at 25 cfs, St. Francis at 9 cfs...but I walked every riffle.  On my home stretches of Big River, it's not unusual for the river to be flowing 30-50 cfs, and I can float SOME riffles cleanly at that flow, but I'll scrape bottom on most and have to walk a couple.

[fishinwrench]

3 hours ago, Al Agnew said:

Wrench, that's not really how gage height works.  Every gage is different when it comes to gage height.  0 is not necessarily bone dry, and gage height doesn't necessarily increase as you go downstream

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  A "0" gage reading will indicate that any LOSING SECTION will be bone dry.   Water flowing down a river basin isn't always all above the riverbed. Varying amounts of that flow goes underground....from place to place....and may re-enter the riverbed downstream.   I don't care about the amount of water underground, I only care about the water that's above the riverbed keeping the fish wet.   

I don't wanna argue about it, because you probably know more about this than I do.  I'm just making the case that the gauge height method works wonderfully for ME......So there's no reason why it couldn't work for others.   It's quick, it doesn't require any memory or calculating.    

Of course, as I also made clear (or attempted to) I'm not ever opposed to hopping out and wading through some skinny spots.   Matter of fact I hardly ever FISH from the canoe.  I mostly use the canoe to float through spots where I either can't wade, of don't care to thoroughly fish.   Whereas you seem to be concerned about the ability to float an entire section without ever having to get out.     In my world, the fish are way easier to find and catch during times, and on streams, where they have less deep(er) water to occupy.    I'm there to fish.....not go for a leasurly boat ride. 🙂  

 

Now, as to guage placement and accuracy...... Usually I'd be the one to say that Geologists/Biologists do half-assed jobs.  But in this case I'm gonna bet that river level monitors are NOT just slapped in un-strategically.   I'm sure there's a setting method that is reasonably consistent.    More consistent, possibly AND PROBABLY, than the measure/calculation of CFS.    

Let me ask you THIS......On a stream with no USGS guage installed, can YOU measure and monitor CFS ?   Huh?? 😉     Because I can measure and monitor guage height very VERY EASILY, at any place I choose to do so, with NO PHONE SERVICE OR INTERNET ACCESS.  😁   And I'm just a stupid boat mechanic!  

In a 1 hour period with no internet access....can you tell me if the river you're on is starting to rise, or fall, by measuring the CFS ?   Or do you just glance over at that rock that you were standing next to a few minutes ago?   

[fishinwrench]

On the lower ends of creeks/rivers that feed into impoundments, if you're paying attention, you'll notice the water level going up and down.  Some days as much as 8-10".... which is pretty significant.  

And even on calm stable days with minimum generation at the dam there is a constant fluctuation of 3"-5" 

Up & down she goes. It's always either creeping up, or creeping down, just like the tide.   And paying attention to that is a major factor in any fishing pattern you are attempting to execute in those areas.  

Just throwing a little tip in there for ya that I know the majority of people don't even realize.  

How can the lake level remain consistent, yet the feeder creeks don't?  By almost a foot!?!?   Good question!    But it's a bonafide fact, and no measure of CFS on either end is gonna show it.   

So there's that !   

[Al Agnew]

12 hours ago, fishinwrench said:

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  A "0" gage reading will indicate that any LOSING SECTION will be bone dry.   Water flowing down a river basin isn't always all above the riverbed. Varying amounts of that flow goes underground....from place to place....and may re-enter the riverbed downstream.   I don't care about the amount of water underground, I only care about the water that's above the riverbed keeping the fish wet.   

I don't wanna argue about it, because you probably know more about this than I do.  I'm just making the case that the gauge height method works wonderfully for ME......So there's no reason why it couldn't work for others.   It's quick, it doesn't require any memory or calculating.    

Of course, as I also made clear (or attempted to) I'm not ever opposed to hopping out and wading through some skinny spots.   Matter of fact I hardly ever FISH from the canoe.  I mostly use the canoe to float through spots where I either can't wade, of don't care to thoroughly fish.   Whereas you seem to be concerned about the ability to float an entire section without ever having to get out.     In my world, the fish are way easier to find and catch during times, and on streams, where they have less deep(er) water to occupy.    I'm there to fish.....not go for a leasurly boat ride. 🙂  

 

Now, as to guage placement and accuracy...... Usually I'd be the one to say that Geologists/Biologists do half-assed jobs.  But in this case I'm gonna bet that river level monitors are NOT just slapped in un-strategically.   I'm sure there's a setting method that is reasonably consistent.    More consistent, possibly AND PROBABLY, than the measure/calculation of CFS.    

Let me ask you THIS......On a stream with no USGS guage installed, can YOU measure and monitor CFS ?   Huh?? 😉     Because I can measure and monitor guage height very VERY EASILY, at any place I choose to do so, with NO PHONE SERVICE OR INTERNET ACCESS.  😁   And I'm just a stupid boat mechanic!  

In a 1 hour period with no internet access....can you tell me if the river you're on is starting to rise, or fall, by measuring the CFS ?   Or do you just glance over at that rock that you were standing next to a few minutes ago?   

Wrench, I don't like arguing, either, believe it or not, but you're just plain wrong on most of this.  First of all, almost NONE of the gages will ever read zero, and yet the one gage I mentioned above gives a MINUS reading when the river, which is pretty big, is flowing normally.  And none of it ever has anything whatsoever to do with losing reaches.  Gages are only accurate in the sections of streams near where they are.  For instance, the Hazelgreen gage will only be reasonably accurate for between the mouth of the Osage Fork upstream, and the Roubidoux downstream (taking into account the losing reach of the Gasconade that's a few miles upstream from the Roubidoux).  Any time a major tributary comes in, it can be flowing high when the rest of the river is low, and therefore a gage reading (either feet or cfs) is not going to give you a good picture of what the river is doing above the trib if that tributary is above the gage, or below the trib if it's below the gage.  So if I see a reading of 150 cfs on the Hazelgreen gage but Roubidoux Creek is coming in high and muddy, I sure can't use the Hazelgreen gage to tell me if the river is fishable below the Roubidoux.  Plus, a reading of 150 cfs doesn't give me a true picture of the losing reach that's below there, either.  I've floated the losing reach when the Hazelgreen gage was reading over 100 cfs and it was probably flowing no more than 30 cfs in the losing reach.

And no, the gages aren't really carefully placed so that a reading of 2 feet, for instance, is the same for every gage.  I've already demonstrated that above.  They CAN'T be.  It can't be done.  Because the gage is dependent upon the stream profile at the spot where it's placed.  If that gage happens to be placed on a bridge with a deep pool underneath it, it only makes sense to bury the end of the gage a few feet deep in the pool when it's at normal level.  But another gage might be placed where there is a shallow riffly area beneath the bridge, and they CAN'T bury the gauge more than a foot or so deep in the water.  So they don't worry about it.  They set up the gage however it works.  Then they carefully MEASURE the flow in cfs at the gage, and correlate it to the gage height reading.  Then they wait until there's a rise on the stream, and go out and physically measure the flow again, and correlate it to THAT gage height.  They do this several times at different gage heights, and then they kinda fill in the blanks.  It ends up being pretty darned accurate.  But they still periodically go to the gage and measure the flow again to make sure it's still correlating to the gage height correctly.  You end up with a very accurate flow in cfs reading.

And no, I can't measure cfs on a stream with no gage unless I'm right there to see it.  When I AM right there to see it, I can tell you approximately what the flow is as long as I can look at a riffle, and as long as the stream is at a reasonably normal level.  Because I KNOW what 30, 50, 75, 100, 200, 300 cfs looks like on any river in the Ozarks, so I can probably guess it from looking at it and be no more than 20% off.  But you can't do that using level in feet.  Because 2 feet, or 4 feet, or 0.5 feet, means absolutely NOTHING in itself.  All it is is the level of the float in the gage at a particular gage; it has absolutely no relevance to any other gage.  It's like if you happen to know that a level of 2 feet is perfect for fishing the Gasconade at Hazelgreen, and you go to the gage for Big River at Desloge.  For one thing, you won't ever even SEE a reading of 2 feet on that gage...it doesn't ever go that low.  But if you see a reading of 4 feet on that gage and you think it's 2 feet higher than the Gasconade is at Hazelgreen, you'd be totally wrong, because 4 feet on the Desloge gage is close to normal and just about perfect for fishing and floating.

That's my whole point that you keep glossing over.  Flow in cfs IS the same for any stream because it's a measurement of the VOLUME of water flowing past a given point.  Level in feet is not the same for every stream, or ANY stream.  A reading of 2 feet on the Gasconade at Hazelgreen is not the same as a reading of 2 feet on the Gasconade at Jerome, even, let alone a reading of 2 feet on Big River at Desloge. But I can see the Gasconade flowing at 150 cfs, and Big River at Desloge flowing 150 cfs, and know they are flowing the exact same volume of water. 

You and I both love fishing low water conditions.  But a lot of people don't want to do a lot of dragging, and the original question here reflected that.  I know I don't mind floating at 30 cfs, understanding that I'll be walking some riffles.  But when I'm advising people that I can't judge their level of tolerance for dragging and scraping and walking, I use the 100 cfs figure because that's the point where there won't be a lot of dragging and walking. 

[fishinwrench]

Alright, you win. But my guage method still works !   

And I'm gonna leave you with one more piece of Idiocracy........ If the knuckleheads can't set a series of simple water level guages correctly then how in the Sam Hell can you depend on them to get CFS calculations right?   

 I mean good grief 😂  Somebody needs to pull their yardsticks out of the mud, and slap them upside the head with them.     

If you tell me that a river I'm familiar with is running 2'high and falling out.....then I know exactly what to expect.  But if you tell me that she's running 780 CFS then I haven't the foggiest idea what it's gonna look like, or how I might plan to fish it.    Or if I even want to.try.

I have an automatic and immediate understanding of what 3" or 3' of water looks like.  But I have zero understanding of what an additional 300-600 CFS looks like.    Am I REALLY the only one here that feels that way?     Somebody help me out here !   🤷‍♂️  

NO! Nobody is gonna chime in and bail me out.......Cuz you phuckers just LOVE to see me struggle.  😅

[fshndoug]

Wrench you and Al are great

 

[fishinwrench]

Just for this I'm gonna start reporting how many CFS of rain and snow falls here at Sims Marine this Fall/Winter.    And I expect all of you azzholes to fully grasp the severity of it.   😋

 

[MOPanfisher]

3 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

Just for this I'm gonna start reporting how many CFS of rain and snow falls here at Sims Marine this Fall/Winter.    And I expect all of you azzholes to fully grasp the severity of it.   😋

 

Be sure to show your math.

[Al Agnew]

4 hours ago, fishinwrench said:

Alright, you win. But my guage method still works !   

And I'm gonna leave you with one more piece of Idiocracy........ If the knuckleheads can't set a series of simple water level guages correctly then how in the Sam Hell can you depend on them to get CFS calculations right?   

 I mean good grief 😂  Somebody needs to pull their yardsticks out of the mud, and slap them upside the head with them.     

If you tell me that a river I'm familiar with is running 2'high and falling out.....then I know exactly what to expect.  But if you tell me that she's running 780 CFS then I haven't the foggiest idea what it's gonna look like, or how I might plan to fish it.    Or if I even want to.try.

I have an automatic and immediate understanding of what 3" or 3' of water looks like.  But I have zero understanding of what an additional 300-600 CFS looks like.    Am I REALLY the only one here that feels that way?     Somebody help me out here !   🤷‍♂️  

NO! Nobody is gonna chime in and bail me out.......Cuz you phuckers just LOVE to see me struggle.  😅

And again, that's not what I'm talking about.  If you're familiar with the river, you know what level in feet ON THAT PARTICULAR RIVER is.  What I'm saying (again and again) is that if you get used to using flow in cfs, you will know what an UNFAMILIAR river is doing based upon flow in cfs, while you can't do that using level in feet. 

Here is another example of what I'm talking about.  Let's say you want to head down to Arkansas and float the Buffalo River.  I'm going to assume you aren't familiar with gage readings on the middle Buffalo.  So you call up the St. Joe gage (because hopefully you know that it's on the middle river--it's actually at the Highway 65 bridge, which you can ascertain by looking at the location on the drop down menu near the top of the page).  Here is what the graph for height in feet is showing right now:Okay...you now know the river was pretty stable, just dropping slowly, until yesterday, and then it came up an inch or so, dropped back down, and then came up about two inches today.  But...was it high enough to float before today?  Is it high enough to float right now?  All you know from this graph is that it came up a couple inches.  You don't know how it was before it came up unless somebody like Wrench's counterpart down at Gilbert tells you what 3 feet on the gage signifies.

Now, here is the graph for flow in cubic feet per second:Now you can see several things.  You can see the river was flowing somewhere between 30 and 40 cfs until that little rise yesterday.  The rise today only brought it up to 75 cfs or so and it's already under 70 cfs.  Remember my rule of thumb that you need 100 cfs for fairly clean floating without scraping and dragging and possibly walking?  You now know the river was way too low for clean floating before that little rise, and is still too low for easy floating.  And see those little triangles?  They denote the median flow for each day.  Median is hanging around 100 cfs.  So now you know the river in this stretch is usually floatable but just barely without all that scraping and dragging this time of year, but it had been and still is lower than normal right now.  

See what I mean?  The graph for level in feet gives you no info other than the river had a tiny rise.  The graph for flow in cfs tells you EVERYTHING you need to know.

And actually, I use the graph for level in feet for exactly what it DOES show you.  Like you, I can picture a 2 inch rise or a 2 foot rise or a 5 foot rise in my mind.  On an unfamiliar river, I always go to the flow in cfs FIRST, to see if the river is close to normal, what normal is for that river, whether normal is floatable this time of year, and whether the river is now floatable.  But if there has been a rise, as is the case on the above graphs, THEN I go to the level in feet graph to get a bit better picture of the extent of the rise.  And that's ALL I use the level in feet graph for.  This example is not a good one, because I will already know that a rise that only increases flow by 50 or so cfs is not a significant one.  But if the rise shown was, say, 200 cfs, I won't know for sure how significant a rise that is, so I go to the level in feet, and let's say it shows a 2 foot rise.  Okay, now I know that 2 feet could maybe be enough to muddy up the river.