Opinion ID: 2049120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Health and Welfare of People in the Gravel Hill Community

Text: Appellees averred in the proceedings before the Board that the rubble landfill would adversely affect the property of individuals who reside in the surrounding area. Harford County points to the testimony of Dr. Patrick Breysse, who was accepted as an expert in the field of environmental health science. According to Dr. Breysse, the diesel fumes that will be emitted by trucks that will traverse Gravel Hill Road to access the rubble fill could cause a three to seven-fold increase in air pollution and particulate matter, based on comparable data. Appellees contend that [t]his increase in air pollution is likely to result [in] worsening of asthma in children. . . and cardio-respiratory difficulties in susceptible elderly persons. . . . MRA counters that Dr. Breysse stated that he performed no empirical studies in MRA's vicinity, had not attended any of the hearings, and was not familiar with the Maryland Department of the Environment's (MDE) statutory scheme regarding the regulation of air quality nor with MDE's permitting requirements for rubble landfills. In a manner reminiscent of its challenge to Westmoreland's testimony, MRA has attacked Breysse's unfamiliarity with legal components of this case rather than the substance of his contention about air quality. Although knowledge of these legal matters and standards may have enhanced his testimony, it was not critical, and its absence did not vitiate the admissibility of his testimony about the increase in air pollution, which was apparently found credible by the Hearing Examiner. Furthermore, Serp testified that in order to install a liner and construct a rubble landfill on the property the existing forest on the Property would have to be removed. According to Bryan McKay, who was accepted as an expert in biological sciences, the removal of the forest will have a variety of adverse impacts on the properties surrounding MRA's Property: the temperature of the soils will rise due to the elimination of the tree shade; erosion will increase because existing trees and other vegetation that provide shade will be eliminated; and the amount of sediment runoff will increase. Mr. McKay also testified that the removal of the existing vegetation from the Property would reduce the diversity of plant life in the surrounding area, which, in turn, would result in a decrease in the diversity of animal species. MRA challenges this testimony because McKay's conclusions applied to all development generally, and not to this rubble landfill in particular. This is not accurate. The witness specifically tied his opinion to the Property: [Appellee Counsel]: So if the forest on MRA's property was deforested, there would be a reduction in animal and plant species along Gravel Hill Road as well; is that right? [McKay]: Yes. Serp testified  for MRA  that the rubble landfill would operate for approximately five years, and then a cap would be installed over the fill that would take approximately three years to construct. MRA testified that it intended to replant trees on top of the cap; Appellee expert Professor Stan Kollar, an expert in forest conservation, presented testimony arguing against that possibility. Kollar explained that the depth of the soil that will be placed over the cap could be insufficient to allow the regrowth of a forest. Professor Kollar testified that the methane that will inevitably be produced by the fill would typically move upwards and compromise the roots of the trees and shrubs that are planted on top of the cap and in surrounding areas. The Hearing Examiner was in the best position to evaluate this conflicting testimony. The evidence of decreased vegetation and increased diesel fumes is sufficient to support a finding that the rubble landfill would negatively affect the health and welfare of the individuals in the surrounding area. Appellees also proffered testimony from fourteen individuals who live or attend church in the area of Gravel Hill Road. Appellees characterize this testimony as follows: [t]he individuals who testified explained how permitting a rubble landfill to operate in their community will interfere with the enjoyment of their homes and yards through the introduction of increased traffic, noise, dust, vermin, and the general unpleasantness of having a landfill in close proximity to their homes. We have reviewed this testimony and find Appellees' characterization accurate.