celery pond

The last part of page 2 on the Project Review Report on Celery Pond from MDEQ is below:

“If the project is proposed under Part 303:

• Would the activity be in public interest? Yes.
• Is a permit necessary to realize the benefits derived from the activity? Yes.
• Would adverse secondary or cumulative effects occur due to the probably impacts of the proposed project in addition to the existing and anticipated activities in the watershed? No.
• Is the acitivity otherwise lawful? Yes.
• Has the applicant shown that an unacceptable disruption to the aquatic resources would not result? Yes.
• Has the applicant shown that the proposed activity is wetland dependent, OR Has the applicant shown that no feasible and prudent alternatives exist? Yes.

EXPLANATION OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:

The revised proposal appears to be in the public interest. It will create needed seasonal boat slips, solve a fish kill problem, allow for storage of marina construction equipment off the Black River and create an economic benefit for all three applicants. Although there will be a conversion of shallow water habitat to deeper water habitat within the wetland, this will not result in an unacceptable disruption to aquatic resources.

The water quality will improve due to deeper water thus cooler temperatures. There will be some loss or amphibian, reptile and water fowl habitat, but this loss will be mitigated and replaced in the constructed off site wetland. The remaining wetland complex will have a better connection to the Black River which should benefit fisheries. This small stream (ditch) is approximately 2 feet wide, 3-6 inches deep, with minimal flow and narrow vegetated riparian corridor. The fisheries and wildlife values associated with this water body are limited. There does not appear to be a feasible and proudent alternative to the revised plan, that meets the three applicant’s needs.

Recommendation: Issue. Modify - KJJ, Date of review completion: 6/14/2007“

Note: A letter from Kameron J. Jordan, District Supervisor of MDEQ, to Kevin Anderson, noted that the 3 applicants have 30 days from the date of the above to sign an enclosed draft permit, otherwise it will be withdrawn.

It is a sad day to think tha MDEQ has put forward the above items. Clearly any huge amount of dredging will have adverse effects to all wildlife in the Pond. And alternative sites for marina were obviously available to the City if one looks at the 2 marina ideas in the current RFP proposals.

In our time of global awareness, there is an absolute need for the preservation of wetlands and the environment. One must really ask serious questions about this project review.

The need to generate tax dollars is a constant talk of the SH City officials, yet the use of tax dollars to accomodate a marina in a wetland in 2007 is something to challenge.

We live in a time that demands awareness of a larger picture than monied concerns. There is a critical need to re-assess the old ideas of what is in public interest. Is really just for the pockets of a few private developers and/or a city? Or do we face ourselves and the selfish drive to gain money? Can we think big, and instead choose to think in light of the good of the whole planet, which needs to preserve the ecosystems of its waters to survive?