![salmonoid](/data/avatars/m/0/957.jpg?1640368487)
salmonoid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,721
Snow melt in Pennsylvania does not recharge groundwater nearly as much as you might think. Out west, where there are dozens of feet of snowpack, it definitely helps. But our storm's snow is no more than 2-3 inches of liquid and most of it will run off. The primary benefit if it does not all melt in one event is to provide a steady source of melt water for streams; sort of like a spring almost.
So positively, probably not much. From a possible negative side, the salt will pretty much be diluted to the point that it does not majorly harm fish populations.
Probably more of an issue is that the stream I was on yesterday was surprisingly (to me anyway) frozen over, with some anchor ice forming. I read one study last year that one of the benefits of ice is it does provide some protection from predators and that fish metabolism is lower under ice than when there is no ice, but that melt events that resulted in breakup of large chunks of ice could be potentially detrimental to fish, as well as scouring the previous year's redds and destroying the fish eggs.
So positively, probably not much. From a possible negative side, the salt will pretty much be diluted to the point that it does not majorly harm fish populations.
Probably more of an issue is that the stream I was on yesterday was surprisingly (to me anyway) frozen over, with some anchor ice forming. I read one study last year that one of the benefits of ice is it does provide some protection from predators and that fish metabolism is lower under ice than when there is no ice, but that melt events that resulted in breakup of large chunks of ice could be potentially detrimental to fish, as well as scouring the previous year's redds and destroying the fish eggs.