Good Morning Mary Kay,

What an engaged citizenry you have! It appears that someone took the time to fly a drone over Mr. Orndorf’s farm to capture photos of this beautiful conservation practice.  This is actually a better photo of this practice than we can usually get from the ground (we haven’t been able to afford a drone yet for the office).  This practice is called a Water and Sediment Control Basin or WASCOB for short, and yes it is an approved NRCS standard conservation practice. 

If you look closely at the second photo, which looks like an aerial from Google Earth or similar program, you will see the gullying that was occurring in this section of field due to the slopes (the crooked line running down the middle of the field).  The fact that this shows up on an aerial photo indicates that it was a pretty significant problem.  This gullying means that sediment was being transported downstream on a regular basis.  I believe the majority of this area was simply planted to grass in an attempt to stabilize it, as opposed to crops.  Geotextile material is used on a variety of conservation and stabilization projects.

The goal of the WASCOB is to prevent this gully erosion, create a level area that can be productively farmed, and reduce the runoff to the equivalent of forest land cover.  Lofty goals, but we are always trying to design and implement projects that will help protect our local waters and the Chesapeake Bay.  

I don’t see any correlation between this conservation practice and CB60-2017?  We help landowners with conservation practices like this all the time, and it has nothing to do with mulch or compost.  Thanks for sharing this with me, I hope you have a great day! - David

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Best Regards,

Sent:   Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM 

From:   David M Banwarth   

To:   Sigaty, Mary Kay     mksigaty@howardcountymd.gov

Subject:   Re: FW: CB60-2017 and Dayton property

Ms. Sigaty,

In your comments to Mr. Nickel that you shared, you referred to whether to "believe" your assurances regarding CB60.  And, while I do appreciate the additional information you provided, I respectfully find it very hard to rely on your assurances in the face of the photos of what is actually happening. 

Lets review the facts and photos:

1.  Erich Bonner and Oak Ridge Farm, 2700 Woodbine Road, Woodbine

Oak Ridge Farm continues to operate, despite being in violation of CB20, as shown in the photo and assurances of enforcement under the proposed legislation. Further, Oak Ridge Farm appears to only need 1-2 acres of the 4.2 acre total site in order to operate this high volume industrial mulching operation.  Do you see any balled specimen trees for sale on this "tree farm"?  No. Instead, you see heavily compacted earth, supposedly "farming" we are told, of which tree farm mulch manufacturing would be an accessory use?  Unbelievable, but yet this continues every day (under Mr. Kittleman's administration) while you both say regulations will be enforced and size limits will prevent industrial mulch sites in residential areas.  Yet, we see that regulations are not enforced and that even a 1-2 acre site operates as an Industrial Mulch Manufacturing site.  Should I believe your assurances regarding enforcement, or should I believe the current photo of what is actually happening?  Should I believe that 1 or 2 acres cannot support an Industrial Mulch site (with all the associated hazards and nuisances and truck traffic)?  Or, should I believe what is actually happening?

It appears to be the same location as where this new base pad is recently constructed, seemingly of heavily compacted aggregate.  Is this coincidental?  Which are we to believe?  Your assurances, or the actual photos and official documents?

Sent:   Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:28 PM

From:    Thomas Bundy

To:    Sigaty, Mary Kay <mksigaty@howardcountymd.gov>, "Kittleman, Allan" <AKittleman@howardcountymd.gov>, CouncilMail <CouncilMail@howardcountymd.gov>, "Lazdins, Valdis" <vlazdins@howardcountymd.gov>, "Gowan, Amy" <agowan@howardcountymd.gov>, "Plummer, David" <dplummer@howardcountymd.gov>

Subject:   RE: FW: CB60-2017 and Dayton property

Councilwoman Sigtay,

Thank you for your longtime service to Howard County.  I have received many emails relating to industrial mulching on Ag Preserve against which so many of my fellow Howard County citizens advocate passionately. I read the email chain today after seeing your name pop up in my inbox.  I was interested to see an email response from our government leaders.  Thank you for sharing.

As a lawyer who has defended government entities in the past in litigation arising from contamination claims – claims that carcinogenic materials deposited in ground soil later resulted in clusters of severe illnesses and the deaths of innocent people (including children) because the government looked away in the name of business or dismissed it as “crazy” environmentalists zealots –  I can attest the issues advocated in support of preventing industrial mulching on Ag Preserve are not only real, but also involve incredibly dire consequences if ignored or not appropriately remediated.

Mr. Banwarth’s response to Mr. Plummer’s email seems very compelling, particularly given Mr. Plummer focuses his discussion more on the second photo of the gully and failed to address several critical points from Mr. Nickel’s initial email – principal of which seems to be that the appearance of crushed stone together with the Geotextile Fabric would negate any credible contention the land is being prep for farming.  It appears Mr. Nickel’s point is that the use of Geotextile Fabric combined with gravel or crushed stone is designed principally to create a surface on which vehicles and equipment can travel in high traffic areas (even if this process has a possible tangential benefit of erosion control).  This use seems more in lined with a mulching operation.  Moreover, noticeably absent from Mr. Plummer’s response to your request for assistance based on the fact that Mr. Plummer (or his team) helped create a conservation plan for Bob (presumably at the location being photographed) is a statement that Mr. Plummer’s plan design in fact included the Water and Sediment Control Basin and gullying system he alleges appears to be represented in the photographs.  I hope you share Mr. Plummer’s response to Mr. Banwarth’s email too.

Of course, you suggest, without naming, in your email that “many others” share Mr. Plummer’s view. But without specifics, against the backdrop of Mr. Banwarth’s email tying together the significant and compelling photographic evidence, your complaints that Mr. Nickel “doesn’t believe me” quite literally poses the age old adage:  Who are we going to believe you or our lying eyes?  This position seems untenable at best, particularly where you have health and welfare concerns on one side and profits on the other.

I would like to remind you of wise words from a dedicated Howard County public servant who said (in advance of seeking re-election): “I think that as I look at the work that we do, we don’t always agree, but we’re not afraid to tell each other what we think, to challenge each other’s ideas, and then to work really hard to come up with the best solutions that we can, hoping that we are in fact moving Howard County forward in ways that benefit each and every person here.”

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/howard/columbia/ph-sigaty-council-announcement-story.html

Is CB60 truly the best solution that we can hope to move Howard County forward in ways that benefits each and every person here?  

Thank you for your consideration and service.  Enjoy your weekend.

Respectfully,

Thomas Bundy / Partner / 240-786-4998