HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 1200 Airport Drive (7)BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
August 13, 1986
Katherine Vose
Act 250 Coordinator
District Environmental Commission #4
Ill West Street
Essex Junction, Vermont 05452
RE: Burlington International Airport
South Burlington, Vermont
AIP No. 3-50-0005-08
Dear Ms. Vose:
Enclosed are five (5) copies of an application for land use permit
for:
1. Relocate, mark and light a portion of Taxiway 'A'
2. Reconstruct, mark and light a portionof Taxiway 'B'
For your review.
If you have any questions on the above, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Gerald . DAmico
Airport Engineer
GWD: tsl
Enclosure: 5 sets plans
cc: William Szymanski, City Manager, So. Burlington
Jane LaFleur, City Planner, So. Burlington
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
Karen Frink, HTA
Airport Drive Box 1 South Burlington, Vermont 05401
(802) 863-2874
109FT'W",
'f �4�' ABURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
-71 41t;�Y
August 13, 1986
Catherine Rees
Agency of Environmental Conservation
Department of Water Resources
NPDES Permit Section
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
Dear Ms. Rees:
Enclosed is a application for permit to discharge wastes in
conjunction with airport improvements to include:
1. Relocate, mark and light a portion of Taxiway 'A'
2. Reconstruct, mark, and light a portion of Taxiway 'c'
If you have any question or require further information, please
contact me.
Sincerely,,
I),,"
Gerald W. D'Amico
Airport Engineer
GWD: tsl
cc: Katherine Vose, D E C 4
Jane LaFleur, So. Burlington, City Planner
CCRPC
Karen Frink, HTA
Airport Drive Box 1 South Burlington, Vermont 05401
(802)8
63-2874
Sf,.( %-/
3M(o ,
Date Received __j By _
Date Application Ccmpleted and Received
By By
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
1) NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE-NU�IIBER OF:
(a) Owner of Record City of Burlington, Vermont
(b) Applicant Burlington International Airport
(c) Contact Person Gerald W. D'Amico, Airport Engineer
2) PRCX= STREET ADDRESS: Airport Drive, So., Burlington, Vermont
3) PROPOSED USE(S): Aircraft Taxiway - Relocate Taxiway 'A' (approximately
7001 x 75') and Reconstruct a Portion of Taxiway IBI (approximately 2251
-x 75' )
4) kZE OF PRa= (i.e.,' # of units, floor area, etc.) See above
5) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (full & part time) N/A
6) COST ESTIMATES:
(a) Buildin
,g s N/A
(b) Landscaping $15,750.00
(c) All Other Site Improvements (i.e., curb work)
7) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE November 1, 1986
8) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in & out) N/A
9) PEAK HOUR(S) OF OPERATION N/A
10) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION N/A
$1,138,250.00
13 j y- —
I I � 1786
VATE SI
CORPS OF ENGINEERS W6 I BURI-11,16 I ON I,)' (41JADUANULL
.1 V11. 63 73 // S W L 5si- x Itim, I ic,,j il 111 T 73-07'3f)"
(C L CHES VER) 10' i �30 000 FEE-- 44'30'
7.,
V
c I E R F'
Cem
al lei'
7-
J, 15
ld 1 1. 1 I'A It Y
I L� S E It VA T 10
a ny
n lie/ pi p"
oil 11 1 SL Mi
v I "pip
Q0K
ILI
x
Chi
k-, pA 0 N T
t ime Kim
v IL ;',I' Qudrrie5
" lb\
rh oil
fOO14
ER
v
715—
J / --
Sub Sta' _q,
��puarry
L - 1�,
11YA"00SKI
fit
101"o
cl s -x
I" s
>
TON qudmes
xv
r "noun J,
Park,
e Ao_
r-6
Quarry
'QU
I _200
n tvi .0 V ER
U
2
to
'I N
BU NGT
10 AIRP
720000
I Al
I)J FEET
vn: a I jjc!r k�
A
IL
A
r
IV-
-7-1
uarry)�
South
-as
g oil CIL ag
'g C, 4925
t -ling
Burfin Bui w
-ountr s
(I. L, n 1,, C 1'. b
t V
\\ I . 11 —1 * 11 ii , \ / " - 0 1 , 34D
A#
o,
man
27'30"
r
A
�nl
19
k
4923
, Is
0
E
1win 11
E,
U I N G T\'. ". 0
U)
A^1
Qujiry
429
U,
16
�L;ndinill
4
Ruin
4920
k
Q
uaiiy
25'
It
pp
400 sue
Ile"
7e..
0
I I� IV (2) (1
GLIICD�` �LCPF
I
CRI I A"LAL ARE7�7A---'-,
- - , , - -- I =JJ - . L, . r .
13 - CAT-C-4 5A-SIN
11
M
0
M
FI
El
DRPONk&E AREA
c G
(A
AA
I
F-7
A4
0 H
n-
,v I - cr-
- 13 a -
IL
AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
RTHENT OF WATER RESOURCES
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTES
Chapter 47 of Title 10 V.S.A.
1. Applicant E3urlinqton International AJ=oZt- Legal Entity
2. Mailing Address Box 1, Airport Drive, Burlinaton, VT 04501
3. Contact -(3erald 1-;. D'Amico Enaineer Telephone 802-863-2874
4. Name of Activity Burlington Inte,rnational Airnort Location South Burlinqton, VT
5. Type of Activity A-Jrnort
6. Nature of Wastes DiSaniLary Industrial Commercial Drainage Other
(Describe)
7. Receiving Water Unnamed tributary to Winooski River
8. Status of Discharge r-X7 Proposed 7'Existing (Permit No.
9. Thp applicant hereby applies for a
.7 --'Temporary Pollution Permit Emergency Pollution Permit
Discharge Permit L-j
!Pretreatment Discharge Permit Pretreatment Temporary Pollution Permit
to discharge wastes, directly or indirectly, into waters of the State
from the above named activity as described in this application, its
attached schedule(s), plans and specifications.
10. Application is for Original Permit Permit Renewal If this is for a permit
L.:2:j
renewal, is original application still valid in all respects ? If not,
attach new schedule(s) for major changes. Minor changes may be documented by letter.
11. Enter below, using a separate serial number (S/N) , to identify each independent
discharge which will result from the activity described in Item 4. Attach
separate schedule for each discharge identified below.
S/N 001 Unnamed tributary to Winooski River 004
002 005
003 006
12. Application Fee Enclosed $ — N/A . Date of application August 6, 1986
13. Name of Authorized Representative (See INSTRUCTIONS).
Walter E. Houghton Director of Aviation
TYPE or PRINT NAME TITLE SI
- TNSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE -
FORM WR-82 (Rev. 7/78)
STATE OF VERMONT
AG( ' OF ENVIRIONY1ENTAL CONSERVATION
uLPA.RTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTES
D
SCHEDULE D - DRAINAGE DISCHARGES Date August 6, 1986
D-1 Applicant Burlington International Air�)ort Activity Airport
D-2 Dis char7e-S/N nol Designation
D-3 Exact location on receiving water (describe and locate on map) unnamed
Tril2utary to Winooski River
D-4 how are wastes conveyed to receiving water? Via catch basins and underdrain pipe
D-5 Type of Dischar,,Te
STORM. 4ATER
Source and Drainage Area (in acres) : Paved Roads 15 A. Unpaved Roads A.
Paved Parking Lots A. Unpaved Parking Lots -A. Roofs A.
Natural Terrain 55 A. A. Total 70 A.
Design Criteria: Rainfall Intensity in/hr. Rainfall Duration hrs.
Return Frequency 5 rs. Coefficient 0-30 Peak Runoff Rate 26
2---Y —CFS
Treatment: F-; None Y;Catch Basin or Settling Basin with Submerged Outlet
Detention Pond: Area A. Volume CF Depth Ft.
Detention Time hrs. and Peak Discharge CFS for design storm
Outlet structure(s)
CF Max. Depth
Rec*,-ar,7e Basin: Area A. Max. Volume Ft.
Inches rainfall stored in. Exfiltration Rate CF/hr.
Other (describe)
GROUNDWATFR AND RETURN FLOWS
Source: [:,Fcun,-Iaticn 'Drain F�Curtain Drain L-] Spring ',7 Well
, I __� Mine ElQuarry
Pond Water Wheel or Turbine Filter Backwash
L
Discharge: Est. discharge CFS Frequency and duration
Pumping required? Contaminants present
Treatment:
D-6 Additional Information
INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE
FORM WR-82D (7/78)
--ay ---DA-TE -,JJEUFCT v SHE T NO -QE-
if
CHKD. 6Y DATE JO' B No.
4,7A -T(
o
11,111 �n +fc-1
'E LIAf:?-
-T-
iLA '�A
7�-
A! L'I �f
7
�171-1 A ��7 I 6:� I -K Ir
T-1
T
T
-T-T
Ll
T-
-1--T--- F
HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES jNC�
t)N9,TEr.HNQ'L04Y PARK- ---!LOPI-E)ONDERRY, N -H - 03053
r, .
FZe%rm
CALCULATIONS- FOR RUNOFF DETERMINATION
COMR BY
D ATE
PAGE
PROJ. NO. �77D-7. (Z LOCATION F;7\,)
CHEKD.BY
DATE.
OF
ism M:.-
as
-6
0
60
ig
--n Tr I fR fFrT OF
CHKD., BY D4TE JOB NO.
TO
V—c
f7"
100- k "ItD- e-
?L,4: -D
"nA
74-
I Wk( f T-A 411105)-� t J-6c) 112- -71
L
HOYLE. TANNEF?- A ASSOCIATES INC � -
- ONEJECHNOLOGY PARK--!!--IQI4 DOND ERR Y'. N..H 03053
y qHE I NO 0 E
717�
CHKD. BY
DATE JOB NO.
-T
I F-4-
7- -4
LT L4 -
-OL"
i L
-eml -CD- A V-
--upl A( c::: om
-7�-L t�-: Z4. P- L
4-- -
L
t --7 X, r
LID 10, a c
(2; - 1 16� 4. t J-j��J:4E�
TL -
T-1
-T
HOYLE. TANNER 8c ASSOCIA-TES INC. 6NE TECHNOLOGY PARK LONPONDERRY7. N. H 03053 i
By_ YQ F DATE 1LUB"Fr-1 _SKEE n
CHKZ). BY DATE- JOB NO.
L4
-Z�,TA
4-t e.,
------ ------
Lt
!A Tell 0 e c-IR I
le ;Aj
T T
e-' C'
7_7
7 3�'T.A L
?TA
F1
4_6;�,� 01 (3 's C P7.�_-
i I
FT
-- - - -------
HOYLE. TANNER & ASSOCIATES JNC,__� ONE TECHNOLOGY PARK 'LONDONDERRY. N.'H� 03053
I
Fnrm C, 1; - I
CALCULATIONS FOR RUNOFF DETERMINATION
COMR By
I
D ATE
I PAGE
PROJ. NO- 3-7-101 - IZ LOCATION 'V!)-T\) - P�aoPt)c-cl)
CHEKD. BY
-DATE.
JOF
THROUGH PEArH
2 in,
INW
100=1
ON M�
MR
=m
.Mwmm.
SIMMS=
OVEW
L
ME
millimmommimmus
*Mob
&*4q
nwwl��Nmww now �m ammommow mm�w �Wmw w sm" bll=
V — I V�a 6 E
7: i a � i � I -- 1 1 7
HKD BY DATE
JOB
c
'41
1c)
17 9
I ZO
7
63 ?-
0
-Z3 T4, -_Cot__
cL5 7�
--�.95 _10CC�7
C)3 oo14 00 1 -1,
7—
D 2-9
5(-lBTc)TAt— 2 1 , 12-q
HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES INC. ONE TECHNOLOGY PARK - 'LONDONDERRY. N. H 03053
ea
--.Q:E� narr7((W im ire-, wn
CHK'D._�Y J' B '0.
7:--t�ATE
U-)P
-7
j
-7
t
HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES INC. ONETECHNOLOGY PARK -LONDONDERRY.N H 03053
/
---_—�_-��
- — ''---- �-j�--'--r—
_
'oY's.,AmwE
.......... ---------
`__-_---.----
mpcIR fRr.w|* 03053'
J3 nATF
Y D�TE
CHKb. B
Aki�Al�
T--L
—A-
11 r) I
... ......... . T-
7-1
HOYLE, TANNER &-ASSQr-LAT-ES-lK
-IF v kiFFT Nn
J-OB N:O.
LD
12
f A
U A LI
T
.TECHNQLQ-Oy P.ARK--!t--LONQQNr)ERRY.. N H, 03053
-914F
No Text
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
PLANNER
658-7955
January 31, 1990
John Hamilton
Director of Aviation
Burlington International Airport
1210 Airport Drive, Box I
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
Re: Relocate Taxiway "All and Construct Taxiway "G 3", BIA
Dear Mr. Hamilton:
The South Burlington Planning Commission at its 1/30/90 meeting
reviewed the plans for the above referenced project. The Commis-
sion determined that the proposed project constitutes minor
revisions with no impact to parking, vehicular circulation, or
surrounding properties. Therefore, the project does not require
site plan approval.
Please note that all construction plans and any changes in
present use require review by the Planning Department to deter-
mine whether their is a need for formal site plan review. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I
carel
Joec'Weith,
City Planner
cc: Karen J. Frink, P.E.
JW/mcp
ill W F
A g -7�7
260
3LI-5 C—) -290
ffypV
joo
00
PRECISION
INSTRUMENT 0
C i-E AR ZONE
iBAK-12
0
1
tD 0 320-
CL.41 GLIDF SLOPE 50! 1
3W
F 994'
—.-_q,�EF�RUNU�A��
PL-- � -
. . .... ..... 304
ARR -STER/
RIER
5
51 cn
300 90, 75'
CL.
36.
CL.35
NOTE: PROPOSED WASTE AREAS AS
DI'RECTED BY ME% TO
EXCEED HEIGHT OF
ISTING
TERRAIN AND TO BE LEFT
LEVEL AND FREE DRAINING
E
OrL 3
qo EIRL F EE)
L 2
EXISTING EASEMENT —L.'MIT OF -(R- E-TOPpING
EASEP�
. . . . . . ENT
U N 01 E V SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTAL 'J
Ix 4
4?
01" Dl;'i'�*)"
IAW
ULTIMATE
ARIA
o.
oa
o.#,o
of o' - - - — — - — — - - EX I ST I N G
ASEMENT
"lo
I p ol do
d%
4
1194, f- p
'o
do,
ol
6 J`
01 a cc
A
4D p <
L-E UIPMENT P�RKIKQ
(A2 DIRECTED BY o,,/
OWNER)
PETERSON
P. YERRACE
IJA
. 45 A
1. Xl; '14
14.
3E "r'E
IRACE
AIRP
'00oo"
La
all
CAS
.0
Proposed Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law
Burlington Airport Taxiway Project
Submitted on behalf of:
South Burlington Realty Company
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
Project Description
1. The Applicant has relocated and improved Taxiway ffAff
South by building a new taxiway to the east of the prior location
(Exhibit A3; Tortolano Cross). The relocation was mandated by
Federal Aviation Administration requirements (Exhibit Al.at 3).
2. The changes in Taxiway NAN South required a new drainage
system (Exhibit A3 at 3). The new drainage system is shown on
Exhibits A4A and A4B, as amended during the October 16 hearing
to include changes made in the field.
3. The new drainage system has an outfall adjacent to a
parcel of land owned by Munson Earth -Moving Corporation.
(Exhibits A4B and S5). This outfall is shown as 'New Outletff
in Exhibit A4B (Tortolano Cross). The parties have referred to
this outlet as 00utfall No. 3.0
4. The work on Taxiway RAff South has also affected an
adjoining drainage system which has an outfall adjacent to the
Munson property shown as ffExist 10ff OutletO on Exhibit A4B
(Exhibit A4B and S5). The parties have referred to this outlet
as NOutfall No. 4.ff
5. Two other Airport drainage systems discharging through
outlets designated as ffOutfall No. lff and ffOutfall No. 2ff
adjacent to the Munson property will be unaffected by the
Taxiway project (Exhibit A21 at 2).
6. As a result of the Taxiway project, the area draining
to Outfall No. 3 has been increased from 3.7 acres to 17.0
acres, and the area draining to Outfall No. 4 has decreased
from 20.2 acres to 16.1 acres (Exhibit A21 at 2) (Note: these
figures do not take into account field differences noted at the
hearing]. The total area draining to Outfalls No. 3 and No. 4
has increased to 33.1 acres (an increase of 9.2 acres). Total
paved area draining to Outfalls No. 3 and No. 4 has increased
by approximately 3.8 acres (Exhibit A21 at 2).
-2-
7. Stormwater drains out of Outfalls No. 1, 2, 3 and 4
onto the Munson property, and across the Munson property to a
culvert under Williston Road (Exhibit S4). Prior to the Taxiway
project, approximately 89% of the peak stormwater discharge
onto the Munson property originated from these four outfalls
(Exhibit S1 at 3).
Criteria I(B) (Waste Disposal)
8. On June 11, 1990, the Agency of Natural Resources,
Department of Environmental Conservation issued Discharge
Permit #1-0839 (Exhibit A13). Discharge SIN 002 allows discharge
of stormwater runoff from the southern section of Taxiway A to
an unnamed wetland which discharges to a tributary of Potash
Brook (Exhibit A13).
9. The Discharge Permit refers to plans and details
prepared by Hoyle, Tanner and Associates and Wiemann-Lamphere
Architects, the most recent dated March, 1990, for details of
treatment and conveyance of stormwater runoff (Exhibit A13).
10. The plans for the drainage system submitted to the
Board (Exhibits A4A and A4B) were revised on April 13, 1990 and
June 11, 1990. Todd Sternbach, the Environmental Engineer
responsible for reviewing the Discharge Permit application,
received and reviewed the April 13 revisions to Exhibits A4A
and A4B prior to issuance of the Discharge Permit (Exhibit
A26).
11. The version of the plans prior to the April 13, 1990
revisions showed approximately seventeen lateral leaching
trenches between Catch Basins #1 and #3, and fifteen lateral
leaching trenches between Catch Basins #4 and #6 (Tortolano
Cross). The current version of the plans (Exhibits A4A and
A4B) shows six such lateral leaching trenches, one at each of
Catch Basins #1 through #6.
12. To obtain the Discharge Permit, the Airport's engineers
originally filed an application which included a report entitled
'Drainage CalculationsN which has been submitted as Exhibit S18
(Tortolano Cross). The original report included calculations
for runoff determinations, on a Form SS-1 supplied by the
Agency, which analyzed the drainage area of each catch basin in
the system (Exhibit S18). When the April 13, 1990 plan revisions
were submitted to Mr. Sternbach, they included a set of
hydrologic computations, dated April 16, 1990, which have been
retyped and submitted to the Board as Exhibit A7 (Representation
of Attorney Ellis). These computations are not on the Agency's
Form SS-1 and do not examine each catch basin drainage area;
instead, they apply the so-called ORational Methodff to the
drainage area for the entire system (Exhibit S1 at 5; Exhibit
Al at 6).
-3-
13. The Airport's new drainage system collects stormwater
from the area of Taxiway A through a series of grass -lined
swales and catch basins (Exhibit Al at 4). The stormwater is
then carried in underground pipes to Outfall No. 3 (Exhibits
A4A and A4B). Some of the pipes are perforated and set in
stone -filled trenches, to allow exfiltration of stormwater into
the surrounding soil (Exhibit A at 4).
14. Federal Aviation Administration guidelines require
airport drainage systems to have adequate peak discharge capacity
for a 5-year, 24-hour storm (Exhibit Al at 7). The Airport's
engineers have designed the system to handle a 25-year, 24-hour
storm (Exhibit Al at 7).
15. The drainage pipe which carries stormwater from Catch
Basin #7 to Outfall No. 3 is a 24-inch diameter concrete culvert
with a slope of .46% (Exhibit A4B; Tortolano Cross). Prior to
the Taxiway project, the pipe exiting at Outfall No. 3 was a
twelve -inch corrugated metal pipe (Exhibit A4B).
16. The new concrete pipe at Outfall No. 3 has a capacity
of approximately 18 cubic feet per second with no head (no
build-up of water above the entrance to the pipe) (Tortolano
Cross; Exhibit S18 - pipe capacity calculations). The old metal
pipe at Outfall No. 3 had a capacity of approximately 1.4 cubic
feet per second with no head (Tortolano Cross; Exhibit S18 -
pipe capacity calculations).
17. Both the Airport's engineer and South Burlington
Realty's engineer have done a computer simulation, using the
TR-20 model developed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, to
determine the effect of the project on the peak stormwater
discharge rate onto the Munson property from all four outfalls
(Exhibits A-21, S4 and S15). Both engineers agreed that the
TR-20 model is the preferable method for peak discharge analysis
(Tortolano Cross; Exhibit S9 at 5).
18. The Airport's TR-20 simulation predicts a net decrease
in the rate for a 25-year 24-hour storm from 44.1 cubic feet per
second to 34.6 cubic feet per second (Exhibit A21 at 1). South
Burlington Realty's TR-20 simulation predicts a net increase
for a 25-year, 24-hour storm from 44.1 cubic feet per second to
59.5 cubic feet per second (Exhibit S4 at (i); Exhibit S15 -
computer printout).
19. The Airport's simulation shows a decrease in peak
discharge at Outfall No. 3 from 12.0 cubic feet per second to 1.3
cubic feet per second (Exhibit A21). South Burlington Realty's
simulation shows an increase in peak discharge at Outfall No. 3
from 12 cubic feet per second to 37 cubic feet per second.
-4-
20. The parties' computer simulations use essentially
the same data set regarding amounts of rainfall, drainage area
and types of drainage surface (Exhibits A21, S4 and S15). The
simulations differ, however, with respect to calculation of the
exfiltration rate from the stone -filled trenches. The exfiltra-
tion rate is the rate at which water will flow out of the
trench into the surrounding soil.
21. The Airport's calculation of the exfiltration rate,
using Darcy's Law, is based upon a number of assumptions,
including the permeability of the soil, the hydraulic gradient
of the stormwater flow from the exfiltration trenches, and the
depth of stormwater in the exfiltration trenches (Exhibit A21
at 39-40). South Burlington Realty's exfiltration rate calcula-
tion, using the Green-Ampt formula, also relies on a number of
similar assumptions, including the permeability of the soil
(Exhibit S14).
22. Neither party did any field testing to verify the
assumptions used in the exfiltration calculations (Exhibit S1
at 12; Exhibit Al at 7).
23. The Airport assumed a soil permeability value of 151
feet per day (Exhibit Al at 10). The Airport's value is based
upon a classification of two soil samples as ffSPO - poorly
graded sand (Exhibit Al at 10). Permeability values for poorly
graded sand range between 3 and 300 feet per day (Exhibit A8).
24. During the hearing, the Airport's engineer agreed
that the fine grain size of the soil samples indicated a perme-
ability value toward the lower end of the SP range (Tortolano
Cross). Since the permeability value is used as a multiplication
factor in the exfiltration calculations, the effective midpoint
of the SP range is 30 feet per day (Tortolano Cross). The
appropriate permeability value, based on the testimony of the
Airport's expert, is less than 30 feet per day.
25. The Airport assumed a hydraulic gradient of 1.18 in
its exfiltration calculations (Exhibit A21 at 39). The maximum
possible gradient, for water flowing straight down through the
soil, is 1.0 (Exhibit S9; Exhibit S13; Tortolano Cross).
26. The Airport assumed that stormwater would exfiltrate
from the entire sidewall surface of the exfiltration trenches
(Exhibit A21 at 39). The Airport's engineer testified during
the hearing that the stormwater would not rise above the bottom
of the outflow pipes from Catch Basins #3 and #6 (Tortolano
Cross). According to the linear sections of the exfiltration
trenches in Exhibit A21 (pages 45 and 46), this means the
stormwater would never rise higher than three feet in the
trenches in Infiltration Area A (Catch Basins #1 to #3) or four
feet in the trenches in Infiltration Area B (Catch Basins #4 to
-5-
#6). The stormwater, therefore, will not exfiltrate from the
entire 5.5 foot height of the trench sidewalls (Tortolano
Cross).
27. The Airport's exfiltration calculations do not assume
any clogging of the soil surface or filter fabric which surrounds
the stone -filled exfiltration trench (Tortolano Cross). Sediment
has been observed in the catch basins in the drainage system
(Exhibit S9 at 6). During a peak storm event, water in the
catch basins will be turbulent (Tortolano Cross).
28. The Airport's assumptions result in an exfiltration
rate from Infiltration Area A of 15.3 cubic feet per second
and an exfiltration rate from Infiltration Area B of 13.1 cubic
feet per second (Exhibit A21 at 40).
29. South Burlington Realty assumed a soil permeability
value of 10 feet per day (Exhibit S9 at 5) in its exfiltration
calculations. This value is based upon classification of the
soil samples as fine sand (Exhibit S9 at 3; Nelson Cross).
Permeability values for fine sand range between 3 and 16 feet
per day (Exhibit S12).
30. South Burlington Realty's assumptions result in
exfiltration rates ranging from .58 cubic feet per second (trench
empty) to .79 cubic feet per second (trench full) for Infiltra-
tion Area A and .49 cubic feet per second to .75 cubic feet per
second for Infiltration Area B (Exhibit S9 at 4).
31. The Airport's exfiltration rates are higher than
South Burlington Realty's exfiltration rates (with the trench
full) by a factor of approximately twenty. This difference
accounts for the different results in the computer simulation:
the Airport predicts a significant decrease in peak discharge,
and South Burlington Realty predicts a significant increase.
32. The stormwater from the southern portion of the
Airport is eventually discharged into a tributary of Potash
Brook (Exhibit A13; Exhibit S1 at 6). The total paved area at
the Airport discharging to Potash Brook exceeds 16 acres (Exhibit
S4-Appendix 1; Exhibit S15). At the point of discharge, Potash
Brook has an upstream watershed area of 36 acres (Exhibit S1 at
6).
33. To obtain a State stormwater discharge permit for a
development containing large areas of paved surface discharging
into small receiving watersheds, the post -development peak
discharge rate cannot exceed the pre -development peak discharge
rate (Exhibit S1 at 6).
34. The Airport took a single grab sample from Outfall
No. 3 on April 25, 1990 (Exhibit A14 at 2). This sample was
-6-
analyzed for TKN (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen), ammonia as nitrogen,
ethylene glycol and volatile organics (Exhibit A14 at 2). The
sample was taken following a very light rain storm (Exhibit S1
at 9). It is unlikely that this sample accurately represents
surface water runoff; it probably reflects background groundwater
conditions (Exhibit S1 at 9).
35. The Airport's grab sample showed levels of 2.4 mg./l.
for TKN and 1.65 mg./l. for ammonia as nitrogen (Exhibit A16).
These levels are significantly elevated above expected levels
for groundwater (Exhibit S9 at 7). The levels of TKN and
ammonia do not exceed the maximum permissible levels under the
State Indirect Discharge Rules, which govern groundwater
discharges from large underground septic systems (Exhibit A14
at 3; Exhibit A17).
36. South Burlington Realty recently filed a conditional
use application to alter the wetland on the Munson property
(Exhibit S6 at 1). The Secretary of the Agency of Natural
Resources, in reviewing the application, found that stormwater
runoff from the Airport to the Munson property contains petroleum
products (oil and grease), ethylene glycol, urea, fuel and
sediments (Exhibit S7 at 3).
37. Elevated levels of TKN and ammonia as nitrogen indicate
the presence of urea used to deice paved areas at the Airport
(Luxenberg Cross).
38. Any increase in the peak discharge rate from Outfalls
No. 1 through 4 onto the Munson property will have a significant
adverse affect on Munson's ability to make any productive use
of the property (Exhibit S1 at 2-3; Exhibit S6 at 1-2).
Criterion 9(K) (Impact on Public Facilities)
39. The stormwater from Outfalls No. 1 through 4 eventually
drains into a culvert under Williston Road (Exhibit S1 at 4).
This culvert is eighteen inches in diameter and has a capacity
of approximately 8.8 cubic feet per second (Exhibit S1 at 4).
40. Only South Burlington Realty submitted evidence on
the effect the Taxiway project has on the Williston Road culvert.
South Burlington Realty's engineer predicts that the peak
discharge rate into the Williston Road culvert, for a 25-year,
24-hour storm, will increase from 6.94 cubic feet per second to
7.46 cubic feet per second as a result of the Taxiway project
(Exhibit S9 at 5). These peak discharge rates do not include
the effect of runoff into the culvert from the storm drain
system on Williston Road (Exhibit S4 at 6).
41. The City of South Burlington uses a 25-year, 24-hour
storm to evaluate stormwater discharges (Tortolano Cross).
-7-
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
With respect to the Act 250 criteria at issue in this
appeal (Criteria I(B) and 9(K)), the burden of proof is on the
Applicant. 10 V.S.A. § 6088(a). Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6086(C)
and Rule 19, the burden of proof under Criterion 1(B) may be met
by the introduction of a stormwater discharge permit issued by
the Agency of Natural Resources.
A. Criterion 1(B) (Waste DisRosal)
10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(1)(B) provides that, prior to issuing
a permit, the Board must find that:
(I]n addition to all other applicable criteria, the
development or subdivision will meet any applicable
health and environmental conservation regulations
regarding the disposal of wastes, and will not involve
the injection of waste materials or any harmful or
toxic substances into ground water or wells.
The applicable regulations are the Vermont Water Quality
Standards (effective January 8, 1987) [Note: the Water Quality
Standards were amended effective April 27, 1990, but the amend-
ments do not affect the provisions cited herein]. Under Section
2-05(B) of the Water Quality Standards, a stormwater discharge
is a major discharge if:
N1. The area of all roadways and parking areas con-
tributing runoff to a stormwater discharge exceeds
1.0 acres and the relationship between the area of
the watershed at the point of discharge measured in
square miles and the area of all roadways and parking
areas measured in acres is less than 3.0.
2. The area of all roadways and parking areas con-
tributing runoff to a stormwater discharge exceeds
10.0 acres.
The Board concludes that the Airport's stormwater discharge to
Potash Brook is a major discharge under both Section 1 and
Section 2. Under Section 1, the ratio of receiving watershed
area (36 acres or .05625 square miles) to paved area (16 acres)
is approximately .0035.
Under Section 2-05(C) of the Water Quality Standards, both
major and minor discharges are required to Ocontrol peak
stormwater flows, where necessary, to prevent any undue adverse
effect on the quality of the receiving waters including, but
not limited to, causing increased erosion, sedimentation or
channel enlargement.ff
-8-
10 V.S.A. § 6086(c) provides:
The board may by rule allow the acceptance of a permit
or permits or approval of any state agency with
respect to (1) through (5) of subsection (a) . . . in
lieu of evidence by the applicant. The acceptance of
such approval, permit or permits shall create a
presumption that the application is not detrimental
to the public health and welfare with the respect to
the specific requirement for which it is accepted.
Pursuant to Section 6086(c), the Board has promulgated
Rule 19 concerning presumptions. In relevant part, the rule
provides that the stormwater discharge permits introduced by
the Applicant create presumptions of compliance with respect to
waste disposal. Rule 19(E)(1)(e).
Rule 19 presumptions may be rebutted. Rule 19(F) provides
in relevant part:
If a party challenges a presumption, it shall state
the reasons therefor and offer evidence at a hearing
to support its challenge. If the commission or board
concludes, following the completion of its own inquiry
or the presentation of a challenging party's witnesses
and exhibits, that a preponderance of the evidence
shows that undue water pollution . . . is likely to
result, the commission or board shall rule that the
presumption has been rebutted. Technical non-
compliance with the applicable health and water
resources and environmental engineering regulations
shall be insufficient to rebut the presumption without
a showing that the non-compliance will result in, or
substantially increases the risk of, undue water
pollution . . . . Upon the rebuttal of the
presumption, the applicant shall have the burden of
proof under the relevant criteria . . . .
South Burlington Realty, the party challenging the presump-
tion, has demonstrated technical non-compliance with the Agency
of Environmental Conservation's requirements for discharge
permit applications: the Airport failed to submit the detailed
analysis required by the Agency for the revised drainage system
plans. Also, the stormwater discharge permit issued by the
Agency does not reference the plans for the Taxiway project under
consideration by the Board.
South Burlington Realty has also proven that the Taxiway
project does not satisfy the basic requirements of the Water
Quality Standards outlined above. The Board concludes that the
Taxiway project will result in significantly increased peak
-9-
discharges of stormwater onto the Munson property and into
Potash Brook. The Board's conclusion is based solely on the
evidence submitted by South Burlington Realty, which shows a
35% increase in peak discharge rate onto the Munson property.
The Board also concludes that water pollution will likely
result from the Airport's non-compliance with the Water Quality
Standards, in two ways. First, given the relatively small size
of the Potash Brook receiving watershed, the increase in peak
rates is likely to cause erosion and downstream sedimentation.
Second, the increase in peak discharge on the Munson property
constitutes water pollution of the Munson property; the increase
will have a significant adverse effect on the usefulness of the
property.
Based upon the foregoing, the Board concludes that South
Burlington Realty has rebutted the Rule 19 presumption. The
Board must next weigh the evidence presented by both parties to
determine whether the Airport has carried its burden of proof.
In reviewing all the evidence, the Board believes that the
exfiltration calculation assumptions made by South Burlington
Realty are more realistic than those used by the Airport. Most
importantly, the Airport's assumption of a permeability value
at the upper end of the SP range is not consistent with the
soil characteristics of the site; South Burlington Realty's
permeability value at the lower end of the SP range and in the
middle of the fine sand range makes more sense. The Airport's
other exfiltration calculation assumptions run counter to its
own statements or violate well -established physical laws. The
Airport's calculations make no allowance for clogging of the
exfiltration surface. While the Board is unable to determine
the precise impact of these factors, it is readily apparent
that the exfiltration rates advanced South Burlington Realty
are more reliable.
In making this determination, the Board has relied on the
principle, expressed in prior cases, that the Board should use
the most conservative predictions submitted to it where the
expert analysis is Nsusceptible to wide variations in assumptions
used and interpretations made." Swain Development CorR., Case
No. 3WO445-2-EB, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order at 27 (August 10, 1990). South Burlington Realty's
predictions of peak discharge rates are more conservative.
The Board also notes the vast discrepancy between the
design capacity of the outlet at Outfall No. 3 and the Airport's
predicted peak discharge. The new 24-inch pipe has a minimum
capacity of approximately 18 cubic feet per second; the Airport
predicts a peak discharge rate of only 1.3 cubic feet per
second. The overcapacity is greater when considered in light of
the FAA 5-year storm design standard advanced by the Airport.
_10-
The abundant overcapacity indicates the Airport's practical
expectation of peak discharge rates.
Based upon its findings, the Board concludes that the
Taxiway project does not satisfy the Vermont Water Quality
Standards requirements regarding control of peak stormwater
discharge flows. Therefore, the project fails to meet applicable
health and environmental conservation department regulations
regarding disposal of waters.
B. Criterion 9M (Impact on Public Facilities)
10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(9)(K) provides that:
A permit will be granted for the development or
subdivision of lands adjacent to governmental and
public utility facilities, services, and lands,
including, but not limited to, highways. . . . when
it is demonstrated that, in addition to all other
applicable criteria, the development or subdivision
will not unnecessarily or unreasonably endanger the
public or quasi -public investment in the facility,
service, or lands, pr materially jeopardize or inter-
fere with the function, efficiency, or safety of, or
the public's use or enjoyment of or access to the
facility, service, or lands.
(Emphasis added).
The Board interprets Criterion 9(K) to call for two separate
inquiries with respect to public facilities. First, the Board
is to examine whether a proposed project will unnecessarily or
unreasonably endanger the public investment in such facilities.
Second, the Board is to examine whether a proposed project will
materially jeopardize or interfere with (a) the function,
efficiency or safety of such facilities, or (b) the public's
use or enjoyment of or access to such facilities.
The Board's review of Criterion 9(K) in this matter is
limited to the effect of the Taxiway project on the function
and efficiency of the Williston Road culvert. The only evidence
submitted shows that the culvert was near capacity prior to the
Taxiway project, and that the project will add significant peak
flow. This evidence does not account for all of the stormwater
flowing into the culvert. Therefore, the Board cannot determine
the function and efficiency of the culvert.
The Board has already rejected the Airport's evidence showing a
decrease in the peak discharge onto the Munson property. As
noted above, the Airport has the burden of proof under Criterion
9(K). Since the Board has no evidence on the function and
efficiency of the culvert, and since South Burlington Realty
I
-11-
has demonstrated that increased peak discharge into the culvert
will result from the Taxiway project, the Board is unable to
conclude that the Taxiway project will not materially interfere
with the function and efficiency of the Williston Road culvert.
B4/17.1029
I
PLANNER
658-7955
City of South Burlington
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
April 18, 1990
Craig R. DiGiammarino
Assistant District Coordinator
111 West Street
Essex Junction, Vermont 05452
Re: Burlington Municipal Airport Taxiway
Dear Craig:
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
658-7958
It has been brought to my attention that the taxiway relocation
work planned for the Burlington International Airport now in Act
250 review, will increase the storm water runoff to a swampy
area to the so-,-.-h of the airport. along Williston Road. This area
then drains across Williston Road by the way of a 18 inch pipe.
That pipe is t.0o small to carry the flow, especially during a
heavy storm. The increase runoff resulting from the planned work
will add to the problem.
The swampy area is privately owned and the owner has had a
hydrology study done on the area. He has plans for developing
the area and plans to control the runoff. The airport work may
impact his plans. The airport consultant should consider under-
ground retention basin or other means of controlling runoff.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Vj
William Skz anski,
City Engineer
cc: Chip Burr
WS /Mcp
Zjop,
U;Ujia
.01 -------------
;T
oz
ED
40
O#F
............
qj�
jo; 4e
va
mum
'(4jo
�ASfER IAND USE PEM T APPLICATION
PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
NO.
Filed: -
(Location) (Date)
Signature of Coordinator/Com. Member
Name, address and phone number of the person seeking this permit?
Mr. Thomas W. Schmidt, Airport Manager, Burlington International
Airport, Burlington, VT PC Box 2302'Burlington, VT Ph 1-802-863-2874
2. Name, address and phone number of the person to be contacted regarding this
application? (Cociplete this only if different from #1 above.)
Mr. Milton B. Cram', Dufresne -Henry Engineering Corp. Precision
Park, N. Springfield, VT 05150 Ph 1-886-2261
3. Describe the project briefly including its location, type, number of units,
lots, etc. Indicate the high and low elevations and outline the tract of
land on a county highway map and attaCh the map to this form. Construction'
of a new� taxiway on the Burlington International Airport Property
(5370' x 75'). Hi.—h elevatic,n 332.7
will in(�Illde D , Low elevation 303.2. Project
(, I e ar J n g., P x Pa va on - g ra cl 1 n g.- (I ra J n,� Ze a n d- h 1 t i i m I nou s
pavement to complete an existing taxiway system to the threshold
of Runway 15 (NW end of instrument runway)
4. Give the address of each of the. applicant's offIces in Vermont, if any.
5. Does the applicant own the tract of land in fee simple? If not, what is
the applicant's legal interest in the land, what is the name and address
of the owner? Applicant owns in fee most of land except northerly
section held by long term easement from the US Government thru
US Corp of Engineers (See sheet 2 of the Attached Plans.)
When did the applicant acquire ownership or control of the land?
1948
6. If the applicant is not applying as an individual, what kind of legal
entity is the applicant filing as, e.g. partnership, corporation, etc.,
and the date and place the legal entity was formed. (Foreign corpora-
tions must supply the date they registered with the Secretary of State
for the State of Vermont, and the name of the person upon whom legal
processes are to be served.) Filing for the City of Burlington
as an authorized representative.
7. a. How many acres are in the entire tract of land? In answering this,
include the total acreage of the landowner. 477 acres
b . How many acres are directly involved in this project? 32 acres
8. On the back side of this page, write in the names and addresses of all
adjoining property owners. If you are not the landowner, list the names
and addresses of all property owners adjoining the landowner's tract of
land. See attached list of property owners and tax maps.
9. When do you plan to begin this project? July 5, 1978
When will this project be completed? November 1978
10. Attach, when applicable, a copy of:,)restrictive covenants to be used in
deeds, restrictive provisions set forth in leas'es, bylaws of condominium
associations, or any other restrictions. None
-3-
11. Financing:
a . Excluding the cost of the land, what is the total cost of the project?
$1,400,000 Applicants for subdivisions should.include cost
of any improvements, such as roads, ponds, etc.
b. How will this project be funded, what financing has been obtained, and
what additional financing will
be
necessary?
90% US
Fed. Aviation
Administration, 6% State
of
Vermont,
4% City
of Burlington
c. If performance bonds will be required of contractors, attach details
of the bonds. (100% payment & performance bond required; see
attached)
12. What municipal services do you intend to utilize? police; fire
protection;
solid waste
disposal;
road maintenance; sewage
disposal;
water supply;
_ other.
(explain)- None
13. Will this project involve any of the following: (check those that apply.)
a. Fuel.burning equipment c. Incinerators
b. Process'equipment d. Air pollution control'equipment
NOTE: Complete 14 and 15 below only when instructed to do so by a district coordina-
T-or.
14. -1-/we hereby certify and affirm under oath that-1-/we have notified by personal
service or by certified mail, return receipt requested, the parties entitled
to notice of "/our application pursuant to Title 10 VSA, §60S4, as follows:
(Each of the parties get a complete application, including plans):
City of South Burlington City Hall S. Burlington, VT 05401
(Name and Address of Municipality)
Municipal Planning Commission So. Burlington, VT 05401
(Name and Address of Municipal Planning Conrnissioin�_ PC Box 108
Chittenden County Regional Planning Com. Essex Junction, VT 05452
Name and Address of Regional Planning Commission) - /�' "f
(Si gratuy-
Thomas W. SchmiV, Airport Mgr.
South Burlington Realty Company
366 Dorset Street
South Burlington, Vermont 05403 OCT 2 6 1990
(802)863-9039
Downs, Rachlin & Martin
October 24, 1990
Mr. William Schroeder, Esq.
Downs Rachlin & Martin
Post Office Box 190
Burlington, Vermont 05402-0190
Re: Airport Taxiway
Dear Bill,
Here is a copy of the "flowage rights" document as
well as a typed version. You'll need them for you
filing on the 31st.
Sincerely,
Gr o A. Dicovitsky
Enclosure
Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development
Design, Build, Lease, Consulting
.01
7 ECUTORS DEED TO AIRPORT FOR FLOWAGE RIGHTS
To all Persohd to whom these Presents st 1 come: I Leon D.
Latham, Jr. of Burlington in the County'of Chittenden and State of
Vermont, executor of the last will and testament of George W.
Delorme, late of South Burlington in the County of Chittenden and
state of Vermont, deceased, and having in charge the
administration of the goods, chattels and estate of said George W.
Delorme, under said will, Send Greeting: Whereas, the Honorable
Probate Court for the District of Chittenden at a session thereof,
holden at the Probate office in Burlington in said District on the
30th day of April, A.D. 1934, on due applications, in writing for
that purpose, said application having been duly published
according to law, did license and authorize me to sell at auction
or private sale all of the real estate of said deceased for the
purpose of paying the debts of his estate.
And whereas, having previously taken the oath required by law and
fulfilled all the requisitions of the Statute, and of the license
aforesaid, I have sold part of the same real estate and certain
flowage rights in another part of said real estate, to the City of
Burlington, a municipal corporation duly chartered, organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Vermont
and located in said Chittenden County, for the sum of one hundred
dollars ($100).
Now Know Ye, that pursuant to the license and authority aforesaid
and not otherwise, and in consideration of said sum of one
hundred dollars ($100), the receipt whereof I do hereby
acknowledge, I do by these presents, grant, bargain, sell, convey,
and confirm unto the said City of Burlington, its successors and
assigns, the following described land and flowage rights in land,
in South Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and State of
Vermont, the description of said land being as follows, viz:
A lot of land on the northeast corner of the land in said South
Burlington of which the said George W. Delorme died seised,
commencing at a stone marker which marks the intersection of the
boundary line of the land in South Burlington owned and used by
said City for a municipal airport, with the boundary lines of said
land of said Delorme and land of one Soule; thence in a southerly
direction for a distance of two hundred feet (200) along the
boundary line of the land of said Soule to a point to be marked by
a stone marker; thence a distance of three hundred feet (300) in a
westerly direction in a straight line parallel to the southern
boundary of said Municipal Airport land to a point to be marked by
a stone marker; thence northerly in a straight line parallel to
the east line of said Delorme property, a distance of two hundred
feet (200) to a point to be marked by a stone marker in the
southerly line of said Municipal Airport land, and thence easterly
along the southerly line of said Municipal Airport land, a
distance of three hundred feet (300), to the point of beginning;
together with the perpetual right to have surface water from said
Municipal Airport land and from the land hereby conveyed, in its
natural course or through pipes or ditches, flow over and upon the
present marsh land of said Delarme property adjoining the land
hereby conveyed, for such distance as such water may cover and to
the brook beyond said marsh land, without any right upon the part
of the heirs of said Delorme and their assigns to claim any damage
EXECUTORS DEE� '"0 AIRPORT FOR FLOWAGE RIGHTS PAGE 2.
against the City, its successors or assigh-, on account of such
flowage of said surface water upon and over said marsh land, the
land hereby conveyed being a part of the real estate and said
flowage rights for surface water being an easement or interest in
another part of the real estate whereof the said George W. Delorme
died seised and possessed in said South Burlington.
To Have And To Hold the said premises and said easement and
flowage rights in said other premises, with all the privileges and
appurtenances thereof, to the said City of Burlington, its
successors and assigns, forever, to its and their own use, and I,
the said Leon D. Latham Jr., executor as aforesaid, do covenant to
and with the said City of Burlington, its successors and assigns,
that the said George W. Delorme died seised of the within granted
premises and of the land in which the within described easement
and flowage rights are granted, and that I am duly authorized by
the Court aforesaid to convey said premises and said easement and
said flowage rights to the said City of Burlington in manner and
form aforesaid; that I have in all things observed the direction
of the law and the license aforesaid, in the sale aforesaid, that
I will, and my heirs, executors and administrators shall, warrant
and defend said premises and said easement and flowage rights
against all persons claiming the same or the land in which said
easement and flowage rights are hereby granted by, from, or under
the said George W. Delorme, or myself as said executor, but
against no other person.
In Witness Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and seal this 11th day
of October, 1934.
In Presence of:
Theo. E. Hopkins
J.H. Macomber Jr.
Leon D. Latham Jr, ???
Executor of the last will
of George W. Delorme
State of Vermont At Burlington in said County this 11th day
Chittenden County SS1of October, 1934, Leon D. Latham, Jr.
executor of the last will of said George W. Delorme, personally
appeared and he acknowledged this instrument by him sealed and
subscribed, as such executor, to be his free act and deed.
Before me. J.H. Macomber Jr.
Notary Public
This deed approved as to form and substance this llth day of
October 1934.
Theo. E. Hopkins, City Attorney
Received for Record Oct 12 - 1934 at 10 o'clock a.m. attest.,
K.F. Tilley, Town Clerk.
Chittenden County Re'gional Planning Commission
P 0 BOX 108, 58 PEARL STREET
ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452
- 802 658-3004
June 7, 1978
Burlington International Airport
4CO-331
- 1. The applicant will prbpare a noise impact study With the coopera-
tion of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. The study
will contain a determination of the airport noise levels including new and
numerous on -site sound level measurements; an identification of noise
impact problems by comparing the noise level data with commonly accepted
thresholds for tolerance in residential neighborhoods; identification of
several solutions including the use of natural and man-made noise barriers;
evaluation of the solutions based on criteria including technological and
financial feasibility; and recommended courses of action. The study will
be submitted to the District Environmental Commission # 4 within one year
of the date of the Land Use Permit.
2. The applicant will discuss with the County Forester a plan for
the location of evergreen vegetation. The applicant will plant a thick stand
of evergreen vegetation, especially trees, on airport property in the area
southwest of the proposed taxiway. The vegetation will be planted so as
to not obstruct the line of sight from the control tower and to not interfere
with relevant federal requirements for setback distances from taxiways.
Dw/cm
Stipulation 4CO-331 by: BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
BY J"� J'�'
Tf�omas Schmidt, -Manager
CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION
BY
_7t
_a_R
Arthur R. Hogan, r. , Ex-ecutive Director
... Sei,ing the Municipalities of ...
Bolton Burlington Charlotte Colchester Essex Junction Essex Town
Hinesburg Huntington Jericho Milton Richmond
S1. George Shelburne So. Burlington Underhill Westford Williston Winooski
I
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
75 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403, TELEPHONE (802) 656-1074
3 May 1990
Mr. Gerald D'Amico
Burlington International Airport
Airport Drive, Box I
South Burlington, VT 05403
Dear Gerald:
Burlinston lnic,,navonal
Airport
M f.'$' 9
01rettor
Enclosed are the analytical results for the water sample Aquatec
collected from stormwater outfall No. I (the western -most of the
two outfalls south of runway No. 1) at 1245 hours on 25 April
1990. This sampling occurred near the end of a morning rainfall.
11he Burlington FregL_j!Kesz reported that 0.16 inches of rain fell
on this date. The other stormwater outfall at this location did
not have a discharge at the time of sampling.
No volatile organics or ethylene glycol were detected above the
indicated detection levels. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) was
found at 2.4 mg/l, and ammonia as nitrogen was found at 1.65
mg/l. As a reference, the Indirect Discharge Rules (January,
1990) have a ground water/surface water standard of 3.0 mg/l for
TKN. These rules also have a standard for ammonia that is
dependent on the time of year and pH. During winter (November
through April), the standard is 1.81 mg/l for pH of 6.5 to 7.5
and decreases to 0.13 mg/l for pH of 9.0. During summer (May
through October), the standard is 0.85 mg/1 for pH of 6.5 to 7.S
and decreases to 0.08 mg/l for pH of 9.0. 1 have enclosed a page
from the rules that lists these standards.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this
information.
Sincerely,
Roland R. Luxenberg, P.E.
RRL/a*mp
Enclosures
90057B3MAY90
aquatec
ENVOTONMENrAL SERVICES
7q Green Motint.titi liurljmg(,�11. V'1 jA4L%1
Date: 2 May 1990
Aquatec Lab No.: 113741
ETR No.: 21067, Project 90057
Sample Received On: 25 April 1990
Sample Idencification: Burlington International Airport, water sample
labeled outfall #1, 4/25/90 at 1245 hours.
97 S F-Ta
1 =71 - .
TM_
Volatile Organic Compounds in ug/1
EPA method 8240
MA 2 a t M. 9.
F
RAM n-T1-A1ZFTM- ITT41TY21-1
Key co the letters used to qualify the results of the analysis:
U - The compound was analyzed for J
but not detected. The number
Is the detection limit for the
compound.
LCB - Compound was found but at low
concentration, comparable to
that in the blank. Quantita-
tion is not possible.
An estimated value. The mass
spectrum indicates the presence
of the compound, but the calcu-
lated result is less than the
reliable detection limit for
this compound.
C - The result has been corrected
for the presence of the com-
pound in the blank.
Quality controls were analyzed with the sample as part of Aquatec's scandard
analytical procedures. The results of these are maintained on file at Aquatec.
aquatec
ENVIRONMENrAL SERViCES
0-0. So. 1111flington, V 1'tA4()J
11-1. 140216"1-1074
Burlington int. Airport
Airport Drive, Box #1
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Attention : Mr. Gerald DtAmico
Date : 05/02/90
ETR Number ; 21067
Project No.: 90057
No. Samples% 1
Arrived : 04/25/90
P.O. Numbers *
page 1
St"ard analyses were performed in accordanea, with Methods for Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA-600/4/79-020,
Test Mothods for Evaluating Solid Waste, $W-846, or Standard Methods for the ExominatIon of Water and WAstowater.
ALL resutts are In mg/t unless otherwise noted.
Lab No. Sample Description
------- ------------------
113741 Outfall #1:04/25/90 @1245(Water)
Method No.
----------
350.2
351.3
OR313
Parameter
AmMonia-Nitrogen
Total KJeldahl Nitrogen
Ethylene Glycol
Result
2.4
<5.0
< Last Page >
Submitted By : /—)
AoUatAn T?,,-
I
INDIRECT DISCHARGE RULES
CHAPTER 14: ENvXRONMENTAL PROTECTXON RULES
Adopted Dato: I IyA6
n than LAsh, Secretary
I kil
A�'nnvy of Natural Resources
00partmont of Environmental Conservation
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, Vermont 05676
Indirect Discharge Rules
Page 26 of 37
An applicant shall demonstrate that an indirect discharge shall not
increase the concentration, including background concentration,
above the permitting limits at the de$ignated point of compliance
either in the ground water or in the stream at 7Q10 stream flows
for all of the following parameters:
I. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (800)
An indirect discharge shall not result in a concentration
greater than 2.0 mg/l BOD (five day test).
2. Nitrite (NO,)
An indirect discharge shall not result in a concentration
greater than 0.02 mg/l N of Nitrite (NOd.
3. Total Kieldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
An indirect discharge shall not result in a concentration
greater than 3.0 mg/1 N of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN).
4. Ammonia (NH3)
An indirect discharge shall not result in a concentration of
total ammonia NH3 + NH 4 mg/1 as N greater than the
following:
211 1 Winter 2 �u=d
6.50 1.81 O.BS
6.75 1.81 0.85
7.00 1.81 0.85
7.25 1.81 0.86
7.50 1.81 0,86
7.76 1.73 0.81
8.00 1.23 0.54
8.25 0.64 0.32
8.50 0.37 0.19
8.76 0.21 0.12
9.00 0.13 0.08
pH of receiving water at point of compliance, as
calculated by average hydrogen ion concentration.
2 For the months of November, December, January, February,
March and April.
3 For the months of May, Juno, July, August, September,
and October.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO
CITY OF BURLINGTON
BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS
In the year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sevety-nine
Resolved by the Board of Airport Commissioners of the City
of Burlington, as follows:
That WHEREAS, the Burlington International Airport has plans
for construction of a taxiway at such airport; and
WHEREAS, the airport has made application for a Land Use
Permit from the District Environmental Commission (D.E.C.); and
WHEREAS, one of the questions the D.E.C. has asked is
whether construction or development of such taxiway is in
conformance with the city's land use plan; and
WHEREAS, William Szymanski, City Manager and Steven Page,
South Burlington City Planner have reviewed the airport taxiway
construction plans and met and discussed the question with
Thomas W. Schmidt, Diroctor of Aviation at Burlington International
Airport; and
WHEREAS, the City of South Burlington plan calls for road
improvement at the end of airport drive; and
WHEREAS, South Burlington feels that the taxiway construc-
tion is in conformance with their city's plan;
WHEREAS, it may be necessary to acquire 2 or 3 residential
properties to construct such road improvements on the Northwest
end of Airport Drive to construct such road improvements; and
WHEREAS, federal funds may be available in the future for
the airport to acquire 2 or 3 residential properties; and
F1
I
WHEREAS, the City of South Burlington has no objection
to the taxiway construction.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that if South Burlington
allocates funds for the improvements above referred and if it
becomes necessary to acquire the above 2 or 3 residential
properties, and Federal funds are available to the airport to
acquire such properties, the airport commission will make
every reasonable effort to obtain such funding and if such
funds are granted for such acquisitions the airport commission
will use such funds to acquire such properties.
Adopted January 11, 1979
Attest: 6t
Clerk
7-4 1 �,Cz-c� 4-,--� (,J
kA-d Ci-
76G
4L,
L
TO:
FROM:
1?eCEj(VEj
7990
et 41URRA Y,
William Ellis
M E M 0 R A N D U M
Russell V. Blais
Hoyle, Tanner & Assoc. Inc.
DATE: May 4, 1990
RE: Burlington International
Airport Drainage
In order to respond to review comments by Jeffrey Nelson of WH&N
dated April 27, 1990, HTA offers the following in the sequence
given in the Nelson Memo:
Items 1 through 6 are more or less an historical review of past
findings, assumptions and opinions regarding drainage conditions
associated with the Burlington International Airport and an
abutting property downstream of said airport. No comments by HTA
are warranted.
Items 7. 8 and 9 of the memo acknowledges receipt of additional
hydrology computations and disputes some of the parameters used
in the methodology. However, the memo appears to accept the peak
flow rates resulting from the analysis. Generally, the memo
disputes the "unrealistically simplistic" methods used to derive
peak flow rates at outlets 3 and 4. The argument becomes mute,
however, when one considers the fact that both methods produced
essentially the same results. It should be recognized that which --
ever hydrologic method is used it is always only an approximation
and when appropriately applied, one method is as valid as
another. In Item 9, the memo mentions an increase in peak
discharge from outlet No. 3 due to post construction conditions.
The writer of the memo expresses concern that this increased run-
off would have a detrimental effect to the abutter's property
with higher flow velocities causing erosion at the outlet and
downstream of the outlet. The proposed construction of a
subsurface disposal system for excess run-off as outlined in
HTA's analysis would result in no increased discharge to the
abutter's property and, overall, would result in a decrease of
peak discharge than that which exists presently.
Item 10 disputes the volume of water that would be disposed of
and or stored in the subsurface system as is proposed by HTA.
The main element of disagreement is the permeability of the soils
or the rate at which water will flow through the soils. The
value used by HTA in the calculation to reflect permeability is
well within the range of values given in various technical tables
for soils similar to those that exist on the airport property.
The method used in computing the performance of the proposed
subsurface system is in strict conformance with technical
Burlington International Airport Drainage
Mr. William Ellis
May 4, 1990
Page 2
literature dealing with the subject. As for concerns regarding
the "clogging" of the system by sediment carried into it from the
surface, HTA addressed this by designing into each catch basin a
5-foot sump to collect sediment that may enter the system from
surface run-off. A filter blanket will be installed in the pipe
trench to further protect against clogging.
Given the above and the fact that similar existing subsurface
systems on the airport are performing as designed, HTA is
confident that the system planned here will work as expected.
That is, it will collect, store and dispose of all excess storm
water run-off before it enters the abutter's property.
Consequently, no adverse effects to the abutter's property are
expected.
RVB/sp
HTA No. 37720.12(LETTERS)
r�
t
*4
i
'14
1j.4
I
lo r -cf
tj
IZ
ra