SNOW HILL — The Worcester County Commission was deadlocked over two different partnerships with the Maryland Coastal Bays Program (MCBP) this week. The unexpected resistance has made MCBP reluctant about pursuing either partnership project any further, though the commission has invited the group back next month for a more detailed discussion.
The first project under consideration was Worcester’s possible participation in Gov. Martin O’Malley’s Stream Restoration Challenge. The challenge is a competitive grant program that seeks to encourage the planting of 1,000 new acres of stream-side forest by 2015. There is a one-acre parcel of land located at the county’s Northern Worcester Athletic Complex that the Department of Recreation and Parks as well as MCBP have targeted as a suitable location for use in the challenge.
Expected benefits of planting trees on the parcel include the chance to involve and educate local students about the environment and the planting process, a reduction in maintenance currently performed on the land and possible nutrient reduction credits the county could seek.
Though the recreation department was supportive of the partnership, the county was evenly split 3-3, with Commissioner Jim Purnell absent, over whether they wanted to further explore the idea. Commissioner Louise Gulyas wondered if there wouldn’t be a more appropriate site for the tree planting that wouldn’t require using some of the county’s park land, even if the land is naturalized and not used for traditional recreational needs. There were also questions about what risks the county could be taking, if any, by participating in the Stream Restoration Challenge with park land.
“I have concerns that at some point and time, this is only on paper, but still it is on county land,” said Commissioner Merrill Lockfaw, “and there could be some regulatory steps taken that maybe we wouldn’t agree upon two years down the road. I just have concerns about opening the door to that type of thing.”
The other half of the commission, however, did feel that there could be a lot of benefits to using the parcel for tree planting that outweighed any negatives. Two motions were made, one to invite MCBP back to continue discussion at the commission’s next meeting and another to deny the project. Both motions failed on 3-3 votes with Commissioners Judy Boggs, Virgil Shockley and Commission President Bud Church in favor of continued discussion and Gulyas, Lockfaw and Commissioner Jim Bunting wanting to deny the project. Because neither motion passed, MCBP was invited back by default in two weeks.
The second project for consideration was a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the county and MCBP for the development and service of Greys Creek Nature Park. The recreation department made a recommendation that the commission work with MCBP to enhance the 574-acre property through a variety of means with a focus on environmental education.
However, the same split developed in the commission over whether a partnership would be a good idea at this time. Bunting explained that he was not in favor of moving forward because the details of how MCBP would improve the property were too vague.
“I would just like to see a clearer idea of what we’re doing here,” he told the commission.
There is a plan, according to MCBP, but it is more a list of potential objectives that could be looked into. Boggs could see “no downside” in partnering with MCBP on Greys Creek since the program has always done good work in the past and any changes they want to make to the land would need preliminary approval from the commission anyway.
“Let’s make the property more useful to us as a county,” she urged the commission.
But the same 3-3 deadlock persisted with MCBP being again asked by default to return for further discussion at the next meeting. Gulyas and Bunting both told MCBP Executive Director Dave Wilson that they would like to see some kind of comprehensive plan when the group comes back. However, Wilson revealed after the meeting that MCBP was discouraged by the pushback and is reconsidering both partnership opportunities.
Wilson doubts he will try and convince the commission to participate in the Stream Restoration Challenge. There are other counties that are more willing to start the planting process and take part in the competitive grant program, he said.
“We’re not going to plant trees on county property,” said Wilson. “If the county doesn’t want trees planted in the county, then let some other county get that money.”
Wilson continued, “The other issue is Greys Creek. We were just doing that at the request of the county Recreation and Parks who need help with that kind of park … we may or may not bring that back but if we do it may not be until the summer. As of now we’re just going to let Recreation and Parks pay for it and do the work there instead of us because we have a lot on our plate.”