19 Years on at Pirates Wharf

Wicomico County officials are moving quickly with preparations for the logging of Pirate’s Wharf, thereby removing the 229-acre forest of public park land.

Back in December of 1997, environmental writer/educator Tom Horton wondered, considering proposals about a proposed park known as Pirate’s Wharf in Wicomico County, “If we understand the difference between the price of timber and the worth of forests.”

Horton was then writing for the Baltimore Sun on the issues facing Wicomico County regarding its purchase of a 342-acre waterfront piece of property along the north side of the Wicomico River upstream of Whitehaven and Green Hill for the purpose of a public park, property purchased with funding from Program Open Space (POS).

Now, a little over 18 years after the purchase, the same questions and issues then raised by Horton are being raised today, this at a time when county officials are again focused on that park property.

From the beginning, county officials focused their purpose on cutting down the timber of this large and old forest with little or no interest in exploring alternative uses of the forest and with no formal public plan for the recreational use of the entire park property. The plan then was to cut down the mixed hardwood and pine forest covering over 229 acres of the entire property acquired through Program Open Space.

“But what a sad precedent that would be,” commented Horton in 1997. He reflected on the consultant’s advice at that time, “The consultant’s advice to cut might make sense if this were not a public parkland, if Wicomico County were not losing forests by the thousands of acres, as it adds residents by the tens of thousands, allowing some of the worst sprawl developments in the state.”

Finally, back in 1997, Horton wrote, commenting on the state use of POS, “it seems insane to even think about spending a million dollars for open space preservation that leads to destruction of another forest.”

Yet, the decision was made, the property was long ago purchased with those POS funds. Now, nearly two decades later, county officials are in a rush to harvest the timber, as evidenced by the January 5th council meeting. Once again, no discussion of alternatives or how this impacts the future of a public park.

The result is the appearance of a county administration barreling through and hoping the public has forgotten the concerns voiced long ago. They are ignoring voices raised today and will soon be leveling a forest without any planning input from the community, about what residents want from their park.

County officials reference a 2014 forestry report, a re-evaluation based on a previous forestry study of 1998, as the source guiding their decision to harvest the entire forested area. The primary objective of the county as stated in the report was “Forest Products,” secondary to “Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Heritage and Recreation.” So the report focused on the primary objective as instructed, the plan for the removal of forest.

Because of the study objective, there was no full evaluation of natural heritage, recreational use potential, or other possible uses for the forested part of the property. And there was no evaluation of the cultural resources of the extended property areas and how they should relate to the adjacent forest resources.

Questions. Would the profits from the logging be specifically earmarked for park development or for the general fund? Is there a plan for the entire 342 acre park land? Has the recreational potential for the parcel including the forest area been studied and explained to the public? Has there been a cost-benefit analysis for all recreational alternatives? Why cut down even one tree without an overall recreational plan for the park?

Concerned residents are now asking hard questions. But many more are not even aware that a recreational resource could be gone before they have a chance to voice what they want. Residents have a right to understand the details, objectives and context of the report that county officials base their decisions. Residents have a right to the opportunity to consider alternatives; after all, this will be their park.

Just how do county residents value the forested areas of a park and what kind of park do they want for themselves and their families? And do we truly understand, as Horton expressed in 1997, the difference between the price of timber and the worth of forests, enough to make informed decisions?

Here is a chance for the county -- officials and residents alike -- to weigh all the options before a single tree is harvested, a chance to have this discussion and careful consideration, and for all to engage in it.

Editor, Linda Duyer, Delmarva Chronicle