Joined
·
7,844 Posts
Some of you may have followed the saga over whether the State would allow dredging to take place on either side of the mouth of Fox Creek. This week, the State approved the permit to dredge.
My initial reaction, as a SR commissioner, was to oppose this dredging. Fox Creek is similar to the other Severn tidal ponds. It has a very narrow, very shallow opening guarded by a shoal. While the actual mouth of the creek/pond (maybe 10' wide) is about 3 feet deep at low tide, sand flats on either side are only about 6" deep at low water. The creek, itself, has a fair amount of underwater grass and excellent Pickerel fishing (plus some Yellows, Whites, Bream, etc.). It is fed by a small freshwater stream.
The dredging permit, as I understand it, will provide the following:
(1) The mouth of the creek may not be widened or dredged. The only dredging will take place on the sand flat on either side to cut a channel from the mouth to the main river, and from the mouth to the deep area of the pond.
(2) The channel will be pretty narrow (can't recall exact width) and cannot exceed 3-ft in depth (MLW).
(3) The channel will be dug so as not to remove any underwater grass beds.
(4) The permit is for three years of maintenance dredging once the channel is completed. During this time, the State will monitor water quality and SAV in the creek to determine if the dredging is hurting (or helping) water quality. The State may shut down the dredging at any point if the testing indicates a negative impact.
I spoke with both opponents and proponents of the dredging. I became one of the opponents to shift to a more agnostic view of this project. Given these parameters, I (and some others) no longer saw this as an especially egregious assault on the ecosystem. Additionally, some evidence exists that the creek was once more accessible to boats, but had recently (in the last 30-years) become shallower (whether this is due to natural shoaling or new silting from nearby properties is a matter of debate). But either way, this fact sets it apart from places like Ray’s Pond, where the historical evidence suggest that it was not previously navigable....at least not in modern times. Finally, I have become convinced that most of the proponents are good stewards of the resource and genuinely would like to see their creek's water quality improve. Boating access is obviously the leading concern, but I think that their environmental concerns are genuine.
So, that's the story. I believe that good, concerned folks stood on both sides of this debate and that reasonable minds can disagree. However, I wanted to let the SRRKC know about this so you will understand what is going on if you see dredging equipment. Further, the more eyes we have monitoring the health of the creek and ensuring that these reasonable dredging parameters are followed, the better.
My initial reaction, as a SR commissioner, was to oppose this dredging. Fox Creek is similar to the other Severn tidal ponds. It has a very narrow, very shallow opening guarded by a shoal. While the actual mouth of the creek/pond (maybe 10' wide) is about 3 feet deep at low tide, sand flats on either side are only about 6" deep at low water. The creek, itself, has a fair amount of underwater grass and excellent Pickerel fishing (plus some Yellows, Whites, Bream, etc.). It is fed by a small freshwater stream.
The dredging permit, as I understand it, will provide the following:
(1) The mouth of the creek may not be widened or dredged. The only dredging will take place on the sand flat on either side to cut a channel from the mouth to the main river, and from the mouth to the deep area of the pond.
(2) The channel will be pretty narrow (can't recall exact width) and cannot exceed 3-ft in depth (MLW).
(3) The channel will be dug so as not to remove any underwater grass beds.
(4) The permit is for three years of maintenance dredging once the channel is completed. During this time, the State will monitor water quality and SAV in the creek to determine if the dredging is hurting (or helping) water quality. The State may shut down the dredging at any point if the testing indicates a negative impact.
I spoke with both opponents and proponents of the dredging. I became one of the opponents to shift to a more agnostic view of this project. Given these parameters, I (and some others) no longer saw this as an especially egregious assault on the ecosystem. Additionally, some evidence exists that the creek was once more accessible to boats, but had recently (in the last 30-years) become shallower (whether this is due to natural shoaling or new silting from nearby properties is a matter of debate). But either way, this fact sets it apart from places like Ray’s Pond, where the historical evidence suggest that it was not previously navigable....at least not in modern times. Finally, I have become convinced that most of the proponents are good stewards of the resource and genuinely would like to see their creek's water quality improve. Boating access is obviously the leading concern, but I think that their environmental concerns are genuine.
So, that's the story. I believe that good, concerned folks stood on both sides of this debate and that reasonable minds can disagree. However, I wanted to let the SRRKC know about this so you will understand what is going on if you see dredging equipment. Further, the more eyes we have monitoring the health of the creek and ensuring that these reasonable dredging parameters are followed, the better.
