Save Abingdon Woods UPDATE- August 27, 2022

“Today the court recognized the importance of the state’s forest protection law and ensured attempts to bypass the law can be easily challenged in court.” Chesapeake Bay Foundation Director of Litigation Paul Smail


Maryland Court of Appeals rules that Chesapeake Bay Foundation may appeal the forest conservation plan from the Abingdon Woods development-AEGIS, August 27, 2022

The Maryland Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and its five citizen co-plaintiffs, allowing them to appeal the forest conservation plan for the Abingdon Business Park development.

According to a statement from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the organization “plans to contest the forest conservation plan for the Abingdon Woods project in Circuit Court. If successful, CBF will seek relief for citizens affected by the significant amount of forest clearing already conducted by the developer while this Court of Appeals case was pending.”

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation originally filed in Harford County Circuit Court in January 2020. The circuit court dismissed the case in August 2020, saying the plaintiffs had appealed prematurely because “there was more for the [Harford County planning and zoning] agency to do,” and that they could not appeal until a final decision was made on the development’s final site plan.

However, Judge Brynja Booth holds that the Maryland Forest Conservation Act of 1991 allows for a forest conservation plan to be appealed before it approved and that the forest conservation plan is, in fact, a “‘final decision’ for appeal purposes.”

According to the court opinion, “a forest conservation plan indicates the limits of disturbance for the proposed project and how the existing forested and sensitive areas will be protected during and after development.”

Project opponents maintain that the forest conservation plan for the Abingdon Business Park would allow for the clearing of more trees than allowed by state and local law.

Read More:

https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/harford/aegis/cng-ag-maryland-court-appeals-chesapeake-bay-foundation-abingdon-woods-20220826-u6cinim7dfe2ppcxryft3jfiem-story.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Aegis%3A%20Top%20stories&utm_content=681661768917&smtrctid=

Permit Input for Abingdon Business Park Project

Friends of Harford submitted comments identifying deficiencies of the Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways Permit No. 19-NT-0228/201961268 issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on June 11, 2020 to CREG /Westport I LLC (Abingdon Business Park property).  

We believe permitting this project contradicts Harford County’s Master Land Use Plan and the goals of Maryland’s tax incentive designated Enterprise Zone areas.

The project negatively impacts Otter Point Creek (a Tier II watershed) and further degrades water quality in the Bush River and the Chesapeake Bay. Overall the project harms the quality of life for Harford County’s citizens.

Friends of Harford requested that MDE revoke the Wetland and Waterways Permit.

Gunpowder Riverkeeper Input to MDE Wetlands & Waterways Permit Re: Abingdon Business Park

Gunpowder Riverkeeper letter to Maryland Department of the Environment

Re: Abingdon Business Park 

Public Input Letter to MDE Re: Abingdon Business Park Wetlands and Waterways permit

Gunpowder Riverkeeper is opposed to the Wetlands and Waterways Permit 19-NT-0228 because of the complexity of the project, the location in a heavily forested wetland, and the stated wetlands mitigation plan that would pay into the non tidal wetlands mitigation fund rather than mitigate impacts within the same watershed. Read more here. 

 

 

 

 

Public Input on Proposed Abingdon Bus. Park from Gunpowder Riverkeeper

Grateful for strong community partners like Gunpowder Riverkeeper for shining a light on the development process and the potential negative impacts to the environment.

Letter provided to the March 6, 2019 Harford County Development Advisory Committee for the proposed Abingdon Business Park. 

To View Full Document CLICK HERE

 

Stormwater

On June 21, 2016, Harford County Council passed a state required financial assurance plan which described how the County will accomplish the stormwater runoff control required by Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) by the end of the County’s pollution permit, also called the EPA Clean Water Act Permit. This requirement is part of the larger program to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries (e.g. Winters Run, Broad Creek, Bush River) by 2025. The reduction of stormwater runoff pollution is important because it is the only source of water pollution that is increasing. 
 
Harford’s financial assurance plan clearly stated that the County intended to remediate only half of the stormwater pollution it is required to stop.  The reason for this shortfall was described as inadequate finances. Finances are inadequate because the County Executive and County Council eliminated the stormwater management fee, without identifying an adequate funding source to replace it. In addition, the County is appealing the terms of its current permit so that it does not have to comply with current and future pollution control requirements. 
 
The County has submitted a financial assurance plan that may be unacceptable and misleading about what will be accomplished with available funding. EPA administrators have already stated that EPA will not accept unused sewage treatment capacity as credit for stormwater runoff control as proposed by the County. More important, such a claim for credit does not reduce pollution in any way and especially not pollution caused by stormwater runoff.
 
The County also proposes to obtain pollution control credit for connecting septic systems to sewers or by converting septic to the best available technology. This exchange of pollution control seems reasonable and will probably result in a reduction of nutrient pollution, but it does nothing to reduce the siltation of our waters or reduce the risks of flood damage from stormwater runoff. An example of a much better trade is to assist farmers in planting cover crops and/or stream side wooded buffers in exchange for urban stormwater management where urban management is not feasible. Cover crops and wooded stream side buffers reduce erosion, sedimentation, nutrient pollution and increase stormwater infiltration, thus reducing the risk of flooding. But of course, this kind of action requires funding.
 
Finally, the financial assurance plan claims that grants will provide some of the funding needed. If the granting agency is the federal government and it considers septic system – sewer connections and unused sewage treatment capacity claims for pollution reduction credit as a reallocation of funds, rather than funding of genuine pollution control, additional grants are very unlikely. 
 
The financial assurance plan seems to be part of a pattern of avoiding stormwater runoff control. The plan clearly states that the County does not have the finances necessary to reduce sedimentation and nutrient pollution required by state and federal plans. The County also acknowledges this situation in the new Master Plan – Harford Next Water Resource Element Plan – Appendix 2. The County has budgeted a hundred thousand dollars to  join some other counties to litigate the requirements of the state and federal water pollution control plans rather than develop a replacement for the funding program it completely canceled. In addition, a recent survey revealed that developers complied with the County’s Erosion and Sedimentation Act only 34% of the time, and the County has presented no plans to increase the compliance rate either through education or enforcement. 
 
So it appears that Harford County is unwilling to develop adequate funding sources for needed  programs that result in significant water quality improvement. For example, County administrators used and are still using the term “Rain Tax” to mislead the public about the problem and the need for solutions.  Rain is an uncontrollable natural process – but hot, dirty, destructive runoff from heavy rain is created by people and their impervious roads, parking lots, and buildings.  Government must participate in educating our citizens about the problem and take the lead in developing fair, equitable and effective stormwater control programs. 
 
The stormwater runoff control fee had many problems and needed revision or replacement instead of total elimination. Corrective efforts, so far, have been grossly inadequate as evidenced by the financial assurance plan and the County Master Plan. Unless the current County Administration and Council believe that government, landowners and businesses have a right to pollute and to flood downstream properties, we must accept that we have an obligation to change our ways and fix these man-made problems.