LaPlatte Stormwater Report 2010 With Town Maps (57.5 MB)

LaPlatte River Watershed
Stormwater Infrastructure Study

Chittenden County, VT
June 25, 2010
Prepared for:
LaPlatte Watershed Partnership
Hinesburg, VT
Prepared by:
Milone & MacBroom, Inc.
South Burlington, VT
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iv
1.0 Project Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7

1.1 Project Overview .................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Project Need / History of Stormwater Management ............................................... 8
2.0 Watershed and Subwatersheds .......................................................................................... 11
3.0 Geology ............................................................................................................................. 15

3.1 Bedrock Geology .................................................................................................. 15
3.2 Landforms ............................................................................................................. 16
3.3 Soils....................................................................................................................... 19
4.0 Land use / Land cover ....................................................................................................... 21

4.1 Watershed Landuse ............................................................................................... 21
4.2 Impervious Cover.................................................................................................. 23
5.0 Subwatershed Hydrology .................................................................................................. 28

5.1 Runoff Analysis .................................................................................................... 28
5.2 Prioritization from Runoff Analysis ..................................................................... 29
6.0 Stormwater Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 32

6.1 Mapping Procedures ............................................................................................. 32
6.2 Shelburne Village.................................................................................................. 33
6.3 Hinesburg Village ................................................................................................. 36
6.4 Charlotte Stormwater Infrastructure ..................................................................... 39
7.0 Relating Stormwater Scenario to Existing SGA and Water Quality Data ........................ 40
7.1 SGA Data .............................................................................................................. 40
7.2 Water Quality Data ............................................................................................... 42
8.0 Stormwater Treatment Projects and General Recommendations ..................................... 43

8.1 Project Identification ............................................................................................. 43
8.2 Summary of Recommended Projects .................................................................... 52
8.3 General Stormwater Recommendations ............................................................... 55
8.4 Growth Center Considerations .............................................................................. 58
8.5 Stormwater Utility Considerations ....................................................................... 59
2009-20010 LaPlatte River Watershed

Stormwater Infrastructure Study i
9.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 60
Appendix A – Town Stormwater Infrastructure Maps ................................................................. 62
Appendix B – Impervious Surface Calculation Procedures ......................................................... 63

Stormwater Infrastructure Study ii
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by a Vermont Clean and Clear Grant to the Lewis Creek Association
(CC 2009-RCG-3-04). Andrea Morgante of the LaPlatte Watershed Partnership, in conjunction
with Marty Illick of the Lewis Creek Association, coordinated this project. Mark Suozzo, a
student at the University of Vermont, provided GIS analysis through a service learning
component of the NR-243 course under direction of Jarlath O’Neil-Dunne of the Spatial
Analysis Lab and professors in the College of Engineering and Mathematical Science. James
Pease and Collin Smythe of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
Stormwater Section provided project guidance and technical support for stormwater
infrastructure mapping. Pam Brangan of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
provided GIS data and project guidance. Bernie Gagnon, Public Works Director for the Town of
Shelburne, contributed firsthand knowledge of the stormwater infrastructure in Shelburne. Bill
Hoadley added knowledge of stormwater outfalls in Shelburne and regional water quality
conditions.

Stormwater Infrastructure Study iii
Executive Summary
Milone & MacBroom, Inc was retained by the LaPlatte Watershed Partnership to analyze
stormwater impacts on the LaPlatte River and tributaries in Shelburne, Charlotte, and Hinesburg,
Vermont. The work here includes both GIS analysis and field verification to identify primary
stormwater impacts to water quality and stream geomorphology within the LaPlatte watershed.
Subwatersheds corresponding to stream geomorphic assessment reaches were refined with high
resolution topography and field verification of drainage patterns and stormwater infrastructure.
These subwatersheds served as a basis for the stormwater analysis.
Stormwater infrastructure mapping was compiled for regions of the LaPlatte River watershed in
Shelburne, Charlotte, and Hinesburg. This mapping included collection systems, treatment areas,
and outfalls. Data was collected using plans submitted for use with VT DEC stormwater permits,
a windshield survey, and collection of GPS information on foot in developed village centers.
A GIS study was performed by a University of Vermont student by subwatershed to estimate

relative stormwater risks based on impervious cover, soils, landuse, and runoff volume to target
specific subwatersheds for mitigation.
Subwatersheds were ranked based on percent impervious cover and estimated runoff volumes.
Ranking confirmed that the priority subwatersheds for focused stormwater mitigation are within
the village centers where the most land use conversion has taken place. Priority subwatersheds
identified include areas draining to reaches of the LaPlatte River (M04, M06, and M16 village
areas), McCabe’s Brook (T1.03 in Shelburne Village), the Canal (T4.01, T4.04), and Patrick
Brook (M15.S2 in Hinesburg Village).
Results of past stream geomorphic assessment and corridor planning were compared to identified
stormwater risks. Several of the subwatersheds that ranked high in terms of impervious surface
and runoff volume also had Poor to Fair geomorphic condition (M06, M16, T1.03, T4.01, and
T4.04). Many of these subwatersheds, and subwatersheds downstream of priority stormwater
subwatersheds, had excessive bank erosion. It appears that stormwater inputs may be
contributing to local stream channel adjustment and channel instability.
Stream Habitat condition is Fair to Poor at or downstream of primary stormwater inputs. For
example, on the LaPlatte River habitat condition is fair upstream of reach M16 that receives the
majority of stormwater from the village center of Hinesburg, yet the condition reduces to Poor
downstream of the stormwater inputs. In Patrick Brook, upper reaches were found to have Good
habitat while conditions reduced further downstream (T4.02 and T4.01) to Fair to Poor where
stormwater inputs occur. In Shelburne, habitat conditions were found to be Fair where the
majority of stormwater inputs occur (T3.01, M06).
Stormwater Infrastructure Study iv
Water quality monitoring completed in the LaPlatte River and McCabe’s Brook by the LaPlatte
Watershed Partnership as part of its Volunteer Monitoring Program starting in 2004 (LWP 2008)
was reviewed and compared to the stormwater mapping analysis. Water quality data have shown
that storm events tend to increase concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended solids.
Water quality results indicate that the LaPlatte River may be impacted from runoff from the
Shelburne Village area, corresponding to priority subwatersheds identified in the impervious
cover and runoff volume ranking. Increases in suspended sediments, phosphorus, and bank
erosion downstream of Hinesburg Village are possibly a product of increased local flows from
stormwater runoff that are typically untreated at the current time. The water quality report notes,
“Phosphorus concentrations in McCabe’s Brook are significantly impacted by storm runoff from
agricultural land and large impervious surfaces, as well as by stormwater runoff from
urban/semi-urban areas in downstream stations.” Sampling on Patrick Brook showed increases in
turbidity and Total Phosphorus between the Mechanicsville Road and Route 116 crossings,
suggesting that runoff from the commercial development may be influencing water quality.
Water quality data on Mud Hollow and Bingham Brook tributaries show increased suspended
solids and phosphorus concentrations during high flows where large road and field ditch
networks are the primary stormwater conveyance mechanisms such as in headwater locations in
Charlotte and other rural locations in the watershed.
Stormwater accumulation areas and collection systems discharging within priority subwatersheds
without treatment were identified for future stormwater mitigation projects. Projects were
identified primarily in the village centers. Contributing drainage area and amount of impervious
surface were calculated to guide project implementation.
General recommendations for stormwater management are provided based on the results of this
study. These include requirements of smaller scale development to mitigate stormwater and
recommendation of a growth center / town village plan for stormwater.
Low Impact Development (LID) techniques are summarized and suggested for local
implementation. These practices are small, relatively low cost, and applicable on a property by
property basis. Cumulatively, small changes to the amount of impervious surface connected to a
drainage system have a large impact. Two specific village neighborhoods are identified for
possible implementation. Specific popular LID methods are suggested as possible ways to meet
to following stormwater treatment goals.
• Limit the amount of impervious surface and preserve open space

• Disconnect impervious surfaces from collection systems and receiving waters
• Preserve river corridor natural stormwater functions
• Improve stormwater treatment function of roadside ditches

Stormwater Infrastructure Study v
The sources of unregulated and unmitigated stormwater are substantial in the LaPlatte River
watershed and the state. The Laplatte River watershed is not designated as a stormwater
impaired watershed according the EPA 303(d) list and steps should be taken to improve stream
health and avoid a future impaired designation. Stormwater has a cumulative effect on receiving
waters and should therefore be examined on a watershed basis, as is done for Total Maximum
Daily Load allocations in impaired waterways. This project takes a proactive approach to
examine stormwater risks in the LaPlatte River watershed to improve the condition of receiving
waters and guide future growth.

Stormwater Infrastructure Study vi
1.0 Project Introduction
1.1 Project Overview
Lewis Creek Association and LaPlatte Watershed Partnership (LCA- LWP) have completed
water quality and geomorphic assessments (VTANR 2009) for the LaPlatte River that suggest
significant erosion and phosphorus mobilization impacts due to stormwater runoff. Likely
stormwater stressors include direct connections to river channels from impervious and
compacted surfaces, and large-scale tilled agricultural areas directly draining to stream channels.
Examination of stormwater outfalls and impacts to the river channels was identified as a priority
project in the Stream Corridor Plan for the LaPlatte River and Tributaries in Town of Hinesburg
(LWP 2007) and Reaches M6-M11 in Towns of Charlotte and Shelburne (LWP 2008). LCA-
LWP retained Milone & MacBroom Inc. (MMI) to study stormwater infrastructure and inputs to
the LaPlatte River in Shelburne, Hinesburg, and Charlotte. The objectives of the project follow.
• Update and expand existing stormwater infrastructure mapping with available plans and
field verification to provide tool for future stormwater management.
• Identify likely stormwater impact locations in the LaPlatte River Watershed using
available GIS resources and updated stormwater infrastructure mapping, and land use
regulations.
• Relate stormwater runoff and infrastructure to previously collected geomorphic, habitat,

and water quality data.
• Identify potential stormwater design projects for implementation.
• Provide recommendations for further river protection planning strategies.
• Share revised GIS mapping with project stakeholders. GIS files will reside with LCA-
LWP, DEC, CCRPC, and the Towns.
Many project partners have worked with LCA-LWP and MMI to contribute data, analysis,
methods, and interest in project outcomes.
• University of Vermont, Spatial Analysis Laboratory
• Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC)
• Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Stormwater Section
• DEC River Management Program
• Town of Shelburne

Stormwater Infrastructure Study 7
• Town of Hinesburg
• Town of Charlotte
1.2 Project Need / History of Stormwater Management
As land becomes increasingly compacted, cleared, and covered with impervious surface a larger
volume of stormwater will run off the land rather than infiltrate. Land use conversion away from
naturally vegetated condition tends to shorten the amount of time it takes for water to travel to
the receiving body. The increased volume and shortened time for water to reach the stream
contribute to increasing peak flood discharges, volumes, and water surface elevations in the
river.
As the flow changes, the channel adjusts to attempt to regain the balance between water and
sediment (Lane 1955). Erosion of bed and banks, and downstream sediment deposition is often
associated with channel adjustment. Thresholds of impervious cover below which water quality
and stream conditions deteriorate have been found (e.g., Brabec, Schulte et al. 2002; CWP 2003;
Fitzgerald 2007; Schiff and Benoit 2007).
Stormwater is regulated by both federal and state laws, and municipalities may choose to
implement further rules. The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Stormwater Section issues permits for stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, construction
sites, and industrial properties. Vermont began regulating developments that created impervious
surfaces in the 1970’s.
Impervious surfaces are regulated to comply with Vermont Statute 10 V.S. A. 1264. These
“operational” stormwater permits are required if a new or redevelopment project creates more
than 1 acre of impervious surface or expands by more than 5,000 square feet. If a project with
more than 1 acre of impervious is located within a stormwater impaired watershed it is held to a
higher standard and must apply for an Individual permit, otherwise projects apply for coverage
under General Permit 3-9015. To meet General Permit standards, the site must follow criteria
outlined in the 2002 Vermont Stormwater Manual (VTDEC 2002) for protection of water
quality, groundwater recharge, and channel health. Developments that add 1 to 10 acres of
impervious cover must detain the 1-year storm (i.e., channel protection) and the 10-year storm
(i.e., overbank flood protection). Projects creating more than 10 acres of impervious cover
require detention of the 100-year storm (i.e., extreme flood control.
Some watersheds have been designated as stormwater impaired as listed on the State of Vermont
303(d) List (VTDEC 2008). Stormwater impairment requires creation of a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) to set standards for discharge in the watershed. Stormwater discharges within
watersheds designated as impaired are required to meet higher standards and required to obtain a

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit 3-9030. These rules
are in the process of changing, with an increase in standards set to take effect on October 15,
2010. Upcoming changes will include standards for properties with existing impervious surfaces
less than one acre, as presented in a the Small Sites Guide for Stormwater Management (VTDEC
2009). Currently the LaPlatte River and its tributaries are not listed on the 303d list that
designates impaired waterways. Shelburne will be affected by some of these more stringent rules
due to the impairment of Munroe Brook.
Multiple municipalities in Vermont are subject to an additional standard based on the federal
EPA’s Phase II Stormwater Rule due to their size or other criteria such as containing an impaired
waterway. The applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is
called the General Permit for Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4). In the
LaPlatte River watershed, Shelburne falls under MS4 jurisdiction. MS4 towns are required to
plan for: Public Education and Outreach, Public Participation/Involvement, Illicit Discharge
Detection and Elimination, Construction Site Runoff Control, Post-Construction Runoff Control,
and Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping. Specific boundary areas for permit jurisdiction
are drawn. MS4 permit area in the Town of Shelburne includes the Munroe Brook watershed (a
stormwater impaired watershed) and a census-designated urbanized portion of the village center.
Vermont Agency of Transportation is permitted under the MS4 program as a non-traditional
system.
Construction sites often have large areas of exposed soil that can contribute large amounts of
sediment to receiving water bodies during a storm event. The VTDEC Construction Stormwater
Permit Program addresses stormwater discharge during construction. Construction General
Permit 3-9020 is required for sites that disturb 1 or more acres of land. This permit was created
by DEC to meet federal requirements of the Clean Water Act under NPDES. There are three
levels of permitting requiring increasing levels of mitigation based on area disturbed, watershed
impairment, disturbance time, slopes and soil erodibility.
New and existing industrial sites are required to obtain a Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP).
This permit is a NPDES permit, also a requirement of the federal Clean Water Act administered
by DEC. The permit includes a long list of facilities required to be covered including many
forms of manufacturing, mining, water and solid waste facilities, transportation, mills, among
others.
There are stormwater systems that originally obtained a permit, but have let their permit lapse.
These systems fall under a special Orphan Stormwater Program. This program is geared toward
reviewing the stormwater treatment of a subdivision, bringing failing systems back into
compliance, and issuing a permit. The permit obtained would be under General Permit 3-9010
“Previously Permitted Stormwater Discharges to Waters that are Not Principally Impaired,” and

would not be applicable to stormwater impaired watersheds. Systems in this program would be
transferred to the municipality for control of the system and future responsibility and
maintenance.
Many sources of runoff are not covered by a permit.
• Road systems contribute a significant amount of impervious surface and channelization

of flow in roadside ditches. State Routes are covered under the VTRANS MS4 permit,
but all local and private roads are uncovered and have no mitigation unless built recently
enough to fall under the jurisdiction of one of the permits. Runoff from ditches is
widespread component of rural stormwater runoff in the LaPlatte River watershed.
• Impervious surfaces created before the 1970’s when permitting began.
• New and redeveloped areas with less than one acre of impervious surface (unless in
stormwater impaired watershed, in MS4 area, or industrial facility).
The sources of non-permitted and unmitigated stormwater in the LaPlatte River watershed and
Vermont are abundant and widespread. Stormwater has a cumulative effect on receiving waters
and therefore should be examined on a watershed basis, such as TMDL allocations for impaired
waterways.
In non-stormwater impaired watersheds, non-industrial projects creating less than 1 acre of

impervious surface are not required to obtain a stormwater permit in Vermont (excluding MS4
towns). The federal and state permitting environment tends to leave most stormwater discharges
that are established incrementally in small to moderate projects non-regulated and untreated.
The responsibility for maintenance of stormwater infrastructure and level of treatment defaults to
the municipalities.
Planning is needed to improve the current minimal level of treatment and inform the smart
growth movement that is taking place across Vermont. Low-impact development should include
green infrastructure to create the required treatment systems to facilitate growth while
minimizing impacts to receiving waters, ecosystems, open space, and human health. Outreach is
needed to increase public awareness of stormwater impacts and move beyond the traditional
expectations to collect stormwater and pass it downstream as fast as possible, even without any
level of treatment or consideration of downstream impacts. This project takes a proactive
approach to understanding and improving stormwater conveyance and treatment in the LaPlatte
River watershed.

2.0 Watershed and Subwatersheds
The LaPlatte River runs approximately southeast to northwest and drains into Shelburne Bay of
Lake Champlain (Figure 1). The LaPlatte River watershed has an area of approximately 53
square miles with contributing areas in Hinesburg (46%), Charlotte (30%), Shelburne (17%),
Williston (4%), St. George (2%), and Richmond (1%). This study focuses on areas within
Shelburne, Hinesburg, and Charlotte because of their significant contributing areas, presence of
village centers, and existing infrastructure.
The LaPlatte River is a 5th order stream when it flows into Lake Champlain. Stream order
(Strahler 1952) is one indicator of the size of a stream. Headwater streams are 1st order, when
two 1st order streams meet they form a 2nd order stream, when two 2nd order streams meet they
form a 3rd order stream, and so on. If two streams of different orders join, they retain the higher
order downstream of the confluence. Stormwater inputs occur at all stream sizes, and
accumulate in the downstream direction. Typical inputs are from ditches in rural headwaters and
ditch/pipe systems near village centers.
Stream geomorphic and habitat assessments (VTANR 2009) have been completed for the
LaPlatte River Watershed and provide an understanding of current river form and processes and
how these may have departed from reference conditions based on the LaPlatte River valley. The
geomorphic data is useful to guide planning efforts for conservation and restoration.
Phase 1 and 2 assessments have been completed for the LaPlatte River reaches M03-M11 and
McCabe’s Brook tributary reaches T1.02-T1.05 (LWP 2007). Phase 2 was also completed for
Hinesburg reaches including M12-M18 and sections of tributaries including Patrick Brook,
Beecher Hill Brook, the Canal, and an unnamed tributary T3 (LWP 2006). Data were used to
create a Stream Corridor Plan for the LaPlatte River and Tributaries in Town of Hinesburg (LWP
2007) and Reaches M6-M11 in Towns of Charlotte and Shelburne (LWP 2008). These prior
studies, available for download at the LaPlatte Watershed Partnership website:
(http://www.lewiscreek.org/LaPlatte), provided information for the current study.
Subwatersheds, reaches, and segments were originally delineated during the Phase 1 and 2
assessments. Watershed divides originally delineated using USGS topographic maps have been
updated where new high resolution LIDR data area available (Figure 2). LIDAR data now exist
for 76% of the watershed, mostly excluding Charlotte. Subwatershed delineations in Charlotte
are not as precise due to lower resolution topography available.
Stormwater infrastructure was mapped based on plans of state-permitted systems and field
observations in village centers (see Section 6.0 for more details). Subwatershed delineations
were refined based on the stormwater infrastructure mapping (Figure 3). Field verification of
drainage patterns resulted in adjustment of many subwatershed divides. Observations of the
$
Shelburne Bay
WILLISTON
RD
HA RB O
NG BAY
AT
ER
D k
oo
R RD
RD
D
H
abes Br
RICHMOND
IL L R
UT
SO
D
SHELBURNE
AC OR N
TE R
H
ST. GEORGE
OA K
cC
S GA
R
LN
D
L a P l at te
D
TA
LIME R
NE R
VIS
EL LN
MA RT
FA LL S
BE EB
B UR
2A
IC K R D
R iv
RO UT E
RD SW
L
PO ND
FO RE ST RD
SH E
E
AM
EN
RD
HEAT HER LN
P
er
RD
LN
HARD LN
MA
MO UN T PR ITC
RD
NS
Lake
RD
TI LN
D
THOMAS RD SI Iroquois
K
RD
ON
MM
IC
ON RD
W
ED
M
WE
ST
SO UT HV IEW
RIDGEFIELD RD
CH
DR DR
BO
RI
RD
WEED RD K
OO
P latte Riv BR
La er PL PO ND
O RY RD
CK ND
W
HI
B rook
NATU RES WY SH PO
LN
RD EL W
LIME KILN RD
N PA S
B
ET
UR E
AC ri
NS
DO RS E
Pa t
ck
NE
k PL LL RD
SU
oo
MOUN T PHILO RD
FA TE XA S HI
ET HA N
T U RE
Br
L
RD LS
RD
ow EIL CV U
RD
RD
T
CL A
oll ON
B ee c her H ill Bro ok

PIE TT
FERN RD
Mc C abe s B
R LN
ST
K RD
S
AL LE N H
RO
EN O
Mu d H
UT
Pl
La
E
k C a nal
a tt e
E
Rive r
M EA D
116
WY
tr
r oo
CHURCH HILL RD
OW R
Pa
ic
CHARLO TTE RD
k
MU TTO
D W LL RD W
D
HIL L R HAYD EN HI
BU CK
MU RP HY
CH UR
U RG RD
N
SP EA R
HINE SB
H ILL D
LINCOLN HILL RD
BALDWIN RD
CH HIL
U RG RD
HINE SB
RD
k
S
H ollow B roo
R
BL
T
NORTH RD
AC
L RD
K
DO
LaP
G
GIL MAN RD
LN
la t
GU
DR
te
Bi
ud
IN
ng
W
R
EA
M
E
ive r
ha m
SILVE R ST
VI
OL D R
RD
W
Bro ok
OU TE
MEAD O
HINE S RD
11 6
CHARLOTTE
W SID
ON E MIL E RD
HINESBURG
E DR
Figure 1: LaPlatte River Watershed

Roads Lakes and Ponds
Towns River (By Stream Order)
Location
1
2
3
4
5
Background aerial imagery from 2008 National

Agriculture Inventory Program. Roads from
Emergency 911 database obtained from VCGI.org.
Streams from Vermont Hydrography Dataset
obtained from VCGI.org. Watershed based on HUC-
12 outline, updated where high resolution
topography was availiable by Mark Suozzo and by
field verification by Milone & MacBroom, 2009.
Created March 23, 2010

0 1 2 3 4
Miles
4
WILLISTON
M01
69 acres
T1.01
23 acres
T1.02
929 acres
M02
273 acres
T4.08
M03
797 acres
RICHMOND
206 acres
SHELBURNE ST. GEORGE

T1.03
387 acres
M05 Reach Subwatersheds (By Data Source)

M04 240 acres
LIDAR
416 acres
T1.04
323 acres
T4.07
1433 acres
Phase 1
M06
Spliced
M09
1009 acres M09S3.01
T1.05 676 acres M12S5.01
757 acres M07
105 acres
1079 acres 2190 acres T4.06
43 acres T4.05
Town Boundary
1211 acres
M08
M13S3.01
1314 acres
Lake Champlain
58 acres
M06S2.01 T4.03
River (By Stream Order)
579 acres 383 acres
T1.06
590 acres M10 T4.04
189 acres
5
369 acres
M15S2.01
T2.02 509 acres
T1.07 543 acres
78 acres
M12 M14
T2.01 312 acres 58 acres
T4.02
835 acres 459 acres
M11 M13
1162 acres 603 acres T4.01
Reach Subwatersheds
T2.03 62 acres
M15 T5.01
433 acres 275 acres 2075 acres
T3.01
202 acres
T1.08
939 acres
T2.04 M16

780 acres 1463 acres
M11S4.01
T3.02
1283 acres
T2S1.01 211 acres
Stormwater Project
908 acres
Map By: JSC Sheet:

T2.06
Date: January 2010 Figure 2

120 acres T3.03
805 acres M17
1701 acres
M19
324 acres Scale: 1" = 4,500'
T2.05
334 acres CHARLOTTE
T2S1.02 M18
130 acres
922 acres 485 acres
81 acres
HINESBURG 1233 Shelburne Road, Suite 150

South Burlington, VT 05403
Phone: 802.864.1600
Fax: 802.864.1601
4
WILLISTON
M01
80 acres
(11.3 Adjusted)
T1.01
23 acres
T1.02
929 acres M02
293 acres
(20.1 Adjusted) T4.08
T1.03
M03 797 acres RICHMOND
197 acres
168 acres
(0.5 Adjusted)
(-8.8 Adjusted)
SHELBURNE ST. GEORGE
T1.03
219 acres
M04 M05
(0 Adjusted)
257 acres 238 acres
T1.04 M04
(2 Adjusted) (-2 Adjusted)
Reach Subwatersheds
410 acres 167 acres
T4.07
Boundary Field Adjusted
(86.8 Adjusted) (6.7 Adjusted)
M06 1433 acres
259 acres
M06
236 acres Boundary Not Field Adjusted
M09
Town Boundary
T1.05 676 acres M09S3.01 M12S5.01
M06 M07 1079 acres T4.06
673 acres 2190 acres
515 acres 105 acres 43 acres T4.05
(-84.3 Adjusted)
Lake Champlain
1211 acres
M13S3.01
M08 1314 acres
M06S2.01
58 acres
T4.03 River (By Stream Order)
579 acres 362 acres
(-21.3 Adjusted)
T1.06
M10 T4.04
589 acres M15S2.01
360 acres 191 acres
(-1.2 Adjusted)
5
300 acres (1.2 Adjusted)
T2.02 (-8.7 Adjusted)
T1.07 538 acres
78 acres (-5.7 Adjusted) T2.01 M12 M14 M15S2.01
840 acres 312 acres 58 acres 229 acres T4.02
(5.7 Adjusted) M11 M13 (20.5 Adjusted) 458 acres
Stormwater Corrected
1171 acres 603 acres (-0.5 Adjusted)
T2.03 (8.7 Adjusted) M15
T5.01
Reach Subwatersheds
433 acres 285 acres M16
(10.3 Adjusted) 2075 acres
96 acres
T3.01 (-0.9 Adjusted)
T1.08 185 acres
952 acres (-17.8 Adjusted) M16
(12.7 Adjusted) T2.04 259 acres
M16
759 acres
(-20.8 Adjusted) T2S1.01
904 acres
M11S4.01
1283 acres T3.02
1108 acres
(0.2 Adjusted) LaPlatte River Watershed
(-4.6 Adjusted)
211 acres
Stormwater Project
T2.06 Map By: JSC Sheet:

132 acres T3.03
(11.9 Adjusted) 805 acres
M17
1701 acres M19
Date: January 2010 Figure 3
T2.05 324 acres Scale: 1" = 4,500'
337 acres
T2S2.01 T2S1.02
CHARLOTTE
(3.3 Adjusted) M18
130 acres 927 acres 485 acres
T2S2.02 (4.6 Adjusted)
74 acres
(-7.1 Adjusted)
HINESBURG 1233 Shelburne Road, Suite 150

South Burlington, VT 05403
Phone: 802.864.1600
Fax: 802.864.1601
rural road ditch network in Charlotte led to refinement of many of the previously mapped
subwatersheds. Stormwater collection systems in the village centers of Shelburne and Hinesburg
often did not follow ground topography and resulted in transferring collected runoff between
previously delineated subwatersheds (see Section 6.0 for more details). Subwatershed divides
were adjusted where these inter-basin transfers occurred to properly represent the runoff
contributing to subwatershed and stormwater system outlets.
Some subwatersheds were divided to provide a more detailed picture of the stormwater
contributions in village centers. For example, reach M16 in Hinesburg was split because the
lower section is in the village center with dense development and multiple stormwater outfalls
while the upper segment is relatively rural. The refined subwatershed delineations improve upon
past delineations, are used as the basis for analysis for this study, and should be used for future
studies in the LaPlatte River watershed. GIS shapefiles of these subwatersheds will be provided
to project partners for future use.
3.0 Geology
3.1 Bedrock Geology
Watershed infiltration and aquifer storage characteristics are governed by the underlying bedrock
geology. Bedrock is the parent material that makes up overlying layers. It dictates presence of
aquifers versus impermeable layers and infiltration characteristics of soils. Bedrock formations in
the watershed include dolostones, quartzites, marble, and shales (Figure 4) general descriptions
of bedrock types are included in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of Bedrock Geology in the LaPlatte River Watershed
Percent
Area
Code Name Area Description
(acres)
(%)
Interbedded dolostone, limestone and marble with horizons
Ob Bascom Formation 613 1.8 of calcareous sandstone.
Feldspar-rich, thin to thick-bedded, white to buff quartzite
Cch Cheshire Quartzite 23 0.1 with argillaceous horizons.
Massively bedded light gray dolomite with numerous vugs
Clarendon Springs and quartz knots on weathered surfaces, in places
4,997
COcs Formation 14.8 disseminated quartz grains are present.
Leucophyres and lamprophyres variable in color from
k Cretaceous dikes 14 0.0 black to brick red.
Oc Cutting Dolostone 1,489 4.4 Massively bedded gray dolostone.
Cda Danby Formation 3,017 8.9 Interbedded sandstone and dolostone horizons.
Dunham Cyclically bedded buff to pink colored dolostone and
Cdu Dolostone 205 0.6 massively bedded structureless buff to white dolostone.

Percent
Area
Code Name Area Description
(acres)
(%)
Fairfield Pond Light gray to light green quartz-sericite-chlorite phyllite
CZfp Formation 6,160 18.2 magnetite biotite.
Oi Iberville Shale 1,422 4.2 Black argillaceous shale weathers buff in color.
LAKE Lake 4 0.0

Lower unit a gray to white sandstone, often with quartz
pebble horizons; upper unit interbedded red sandstone, red
4,715
Cm Monkton Quartzite 14.0 shale and buff colored dolostone.
Pinnacle
CZp Formation 1,929 5.7 Undifferentiated metagreywackes and schists.
Massively bedded white to gray pinstriped sucrosic marble.
West of the Champlain Thrust the unit is a mottled gray
2,997 and white limestone formerly termed the Ticonderoga
Os Shelburne Marble 8.9 Formation.
Osp Stony Point Shale 30 0.1 Black calcareous fissile shale.

Winooski Buff to gray color, medium- to massively bedded
Cw Dolostone 6,158 18.2 dolostone.
Totals: 33,773 100.0
3.2 Landforms
The entire LaPlatte river watershed is located within the Champlain Valley biophysical region of
Vermont (Thompson and Sorenson 2005). This area was glaciated and covered at times by both
fresh and salt waterbodies. The LaPlatte River watershed is dominated by glaciolacustine
deposits – deposits from glaciers that settled out in large water bodies. Sediments deposited after
the melting of glaciers have been and continue to be transported and deposited by regional river
systems (LWP 2007).
The volume and runoff rate within a watershed are largely a function of soil characteristics of the
area that in turn directly related to the landforms that they are associated with. Sand and gravel
allow more precipitation and runoff to infiltrate into the ground than silts and clays. In contrast,
shallow bedrock, compact glacial till, clay, and saturated lowlands limit infiltration and leads to
increased runoff.
Glaciolacustrine clay deposits with interspersed bedrock outcrops makes up the majority of the
western two thirds of the watershed (Figure 5, Table 2). Compacted glacial till and bedrock make
up most of the eastern third of the watershed. The presence of clay and bedrock over much of
the LaPlatte River watershed indicates poor drainage and limited potential for stormwater
treatment.

HARBO
BAY
R D LAKE $
RD
R RD
D
TER R
HIL L
WE B S
OA K
k
Shelburne Village
SPE AR ST
ST
Oi
!
Cch
SET
FALLS RD
Oc
DOR
RD
W ICK
RD
BO S T
THO M
Ob
ND
AS R
D
Cdu
MO
Os
CH
Oc
RI
CZp
SH
EL
DORS
Oc B CZfp
UR CZfp
RD
NE
k
Cm
MOUNT PHIL O RD
ro o
ET ST
FA
PO ND
COcs Os LL
S D tric
kB
UR Pa
La P
latte Ri v COcs Os RD
CV Oc
Os COcs
NORTH
er
ro ok
SP E A R
B
Mc C
Cda Pa tric k
COcs COcs Cda
kk
abe s B
RD
kOs Cda Hinesburg Village
ST
Ob
k
!
oo
r ook
ook
Cda CHARLOTTE RD k
Br
w
East Charlotte Village
lo
ol i ll
Br
H
SILV ER ST
ok ud Cw rH
ro M URG RD ! he
sB H ESB
IN B ee c
be
Ca
Mc k Cw
Osp
Bi
ng
h am
Cm
Cdu
Cw
Bro
ok
Osp
Osp
Figure 4: Bedrock Geology of LaPlatte Watershed

Bascom Formation , Ob Danby Formation , Cda Monkton Quartzite , Cm
Cheshire Quartzite , Cch Dunham Dolostone , Cdu Pinnacle Formation , CZp
Clarendon Springs Formation , COcs Fairfield Pond Formation , CZfp Shelburne Marble , Os
Cretaceous dikes, k Iberville Shale , Oi Stony Point Shale , Osp
Cutting Dolostone , Oc Lake, LAKE Winooski Dolostone , Cw
The bedrock geology dataset includes data that was

compiled from RF 100,000 USGS base maps. The
data was created under the auspices of the Vermont
Geological Survey with the assistance of the
Information Management Section of the Agency of
Natural Resources.
Map originally created by Mark Suozzo as part of

UVM course NR-243, December 18, 2009. Updated 0 1 2 3 4
by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. March 23, 2010. Miles
HARBO
R RD
r BAY R
D
dsbc r
$
p r
bc stc ds
ps
Shelburne Village p
OA K
! r r
r r ps r
r
HIL L
r
t r r r
bgr r
RD
r r sw
DORS ET
RD
bgm THO M
r r
r AS R r r
K
D
IC
r r
W
ST
r r r r
ST
BO
r r
kt r p r r
D RD
bg
kt r r r
kt
MON
r bc kt r r
t r
RD
kt
RICH
al r ok r
MOUNT PHIL O RD
r r r t B ro
PO ND
t r tr ic k
r r r r UR
D
Pa
t
La P CV
latte R iv k r r
NORTH
t
a nal
er
r
Mc C
kC
r r r Pa t r
r ic
abe s B
RD
ps
wt r Hinesburg
r Village
r r
r
k
r r r !
oo
r ook
r r r
ook
r
Br
w
lo
ol r r
SILV ER ST
r ll
Br
H
r Hi
oo
k ud
MHINE S B URG RD
rr r er
r sB
r r! p B ee c
h
bg be r r kt
Ca r r
Mc r r
SP E A R
r r
r
r t r p
r r r
r
r r r r
ST
Bi
ps r
ng
bg r r
h am
p r r r
ps ps r r
r r
Bro
r r r ps
r
ok
t r r r r r
r r
r r
Figure 5: Suficial Geology of LaPlatte Watershed

al, alluvium k, isolated kame r, bedrock exposure
bc, boulders in clay kt, kame terrace stc, silt, silty clay, and clay
bg, beach gravel p, swamp, peat and/or muck sw, surface water
bgm, marine beach gravel ps, pebbly sand wt, wave-washed till Location
ds, delta sand psm, pebbly marine sand t, till
The surficial geology data consists of surficial

geologic features as digitized from the 1:62,500
15 minute series USGS quadrangle map
sheets, compiled by The Vermont Geological
Survey 1956-1970.
Map originally created by Mark Suozzo as part 0 0.5 1 2 3 4

of UVM course NR-243, December 18, 2009.
Updated by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. March
Miles
23, 2010.
Sands and gravels are mapped in approximately 8% of the watershed. This permeable material is
important as it serves as groundwater infiltration areas. Permeable soils located near village
centers are valuable assets for infiltration to support aquifer recharge and stream baseflow and
for stormwater treatment. A green infrastructure overlay could be created to locate and
appropriately value these areas to target them for land conservation for protection of the
hydrologic cycle and to facilitate smart growth. Land use in this district could be anything that
does not compact soils or install impervious cover. The treatment of stormwater should be
evaluated for future development as is currently done for siting septic system leach fields.
Table 2: Summary of Surficial Materials in LaPlatte River Watershed
Percent
Area Area
Code Feature Description (Acres) (%)
r Bedrock exposure bedrock exposure 3,053 9.0
bgm Champlain Sea deposit marine beach gravel 128 0.4
psm Champlain Sea deposit pebbly marine sand 3 0.0
t Glacial deposit till 7,225 21.4
k Glaciofluvial deposit isolated kame gravel 6 0.0
kt Glaciofluvial deposit kame terrace gravel 1,092 3.2
bc Glaciolacustrine deposit boulders in clay 20,061 59.4
bg Glaciolacustrine deposit beach gravel 142 0.4
ds Glaciolacustrine deposit delta sand 746 2.2
ps Glaciolacustrine deposit pebbly sand 493 1.5
stc Glaciolacustrine deposit silt, silty clay, and clay 78 0.2
wt Glaciolacustrine deposit wave-washed till 24 0.1
p Pluvial deposit swamp, peat and/or muck 438 1.3
al Postglacial fluvial deposit Alluvium, sand and gravel 46 0.1
sw Surface Water surface water 235 0.7
Totals: 33,769 100.0
3.3 Soils
Soil type strongly influences runoff characteristics throughout a watershed. Soil types in the
watershed were determined from the NRCS soil survey for Chittenden County, Vermont that
includes Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) classifications of all soils (Figure 6). The NRCS divides
soils into four hydrologic soil groups: A, B, C, or D, depending on their infiltration capacity –
the maximum rate water can enter the soil. A soils are well-drained and have high infiltration
capacity. D soils have the lowest infiltration capacity and generate the highest runoff rates.
Wetlands typically form in low-gradient areas with poorly drained soils. Wetlands serve
important ecosystem functions such as unique habitats and food sources for fish and wildlife, and
HARBO
BAY
R D
$
RD
R RD
D
TER R
HIL L
WE B S
OA K
Shelburne Village SPE AR ST
ST
!
SET
FALLS RD
DOR
D
ICK R
RD
W
BO S T
THO M
ND
AS R
D
MO
CH
RI
SH
EL
DORS
B UR
RD
NE
ok
MOUNT PHIL O RD
ET ST
FA B ro
PO ND
LL ic k
S D tr
RD UR Pa
La P
latte Ri v CV
NORTH
a nal
er
SP E A R
Mc C
kC
Pa t
r ic
abe s B
RD
Hinesburg Village
ST
CHA RLOTTE RD
k
!
oo
r ook
ook
Br
w
lo
ol i ll
Br
H
SILV ER ST
oo
k ud rH
r M URG RD ! he
sB HINE S B B ee c
be
Ca
Mc
Bi
ng
h am
Bro
ok
Figure 6: Hydrologic Soil Groups and Wetlands

Soil data were developed from materials used by the
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to
prepare the Chittenden County soil survey. The soil data
used were prepared by soil scientists as part of the A C not rated
National Cooperative Soil Survey. Hydrolic soil
classifications conform to those used by the National B D water Location
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and to the
Vermont Stormwater Manual. Vermont Significant Wetlands
Wetlands from Vermont Significant Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Additional Delineations
(VSWI) updated February 2006. Additional wetlands
shown are from multiple sources and should be used for
planning purposes only. Included are delineations in
Hinesburg from Arrowhead Environmental completed
2006 (southern parcel) and 2009 (village area)
extending only to property bounds of selected parcels.
Also included are generalized and potential wetlands
identified by UMASS for the Town of Hinesburg based
on 1993 aerial photography in 2006. 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Map originally created by Mark Suozzo as part of UVM Miles
course NR-243, December 18, 2010. Updated by Milone
& MacBroom, Inc. April 14, 2010.
important ecosystem services such as detainment of surface water. Wetlands identified in the
Vermont Significant Wetlands Inventory have been overlaid on the soils map (Figure 6) to show
relationship between their location and HSG. Large wetlands tend to be found in areas with C
and D soils, and adjacent to stream channels. A higher resolution of wetland delineation is
available in Hinesburg based on a past study of potential recreation areas and has been included
in mapping (Figure 6).
A small part of the LaPlatte River watershed has soils that are suitable for infiltration (Table 3).
The permeable soils are generally located on alluvial deposits in the LaPlatte River corridor in
Hinesburg and Shelburne, and in a north-south band approximately following North Road and
Beecher Hill Brook in Hinesburg, South of Lake Iroquois. Given the limited presence of areas
with high infiltration rates, these locations should be prioritized for conservation for stormwater
treatment as part of a green infrastructure system and for aquifer protection.
Table 3: Summary of Soils in LaPlatte River Watershed
Hydrologic Area Percent

Soil Group (acres) Area (%)
A 1,536 5
B 1,210 4
C 8,097 24
D 22,384 66
Water 143 <1
Not Rated 397 1
4.0 Land use / Land cover
4.1 Watershed Landuse
The current use or cover of the land influences the hydrologic cycle. Land use conversion away
from natural vegetative cover tends to compact soils and create impervious surfaces that leads to
reduced infiltration, reduced evapotranspiration, and increased runoff. Vegetation removal leads
to increased watershed export of sediment and nutrients. Land development is also typically
associated with a reduction of watershed storage.
Landuse information compiled in 2001 as part of the National Landcover Dataset was corrected
by the UVM Spatial Analysis Lab to better represent urban areas. The landuse in the LaPlatte
River watershed is primarily agriculture and forest, with small areas of urban and residential uses
(Table 4). The eastern third of the watershed is primarily forested with some roads, development,
wetlands, and surface waters including Lake Iroquois and the impounded section of Patrick
Brook (Figure 7). The western two thirds of the watershed have a significant amount of

HARBO
BAY
R D
$
RD
R RD
D
TER R
HIL L
WE B S
OA K
Shelburne Village
SPE AR ST
ST
!
SET
FALLS RD
DOR
D
ICK R
RD
W
BO S T
THO M
ND
AS R
D
MO
CH
RI
SH
EL
DORS
B UR
RD
NE
ok
MOUNT PHIL O RD
ET ST
FA B ro
PO ND
LL ic k
S D tr
RD UR Pa
La P
latte Ri v CV
NORTH
a nal
er
SP E A R
McC
kC
Pa t
r ic
abe s B
RD
Hinesburg Village
ST
CHA RLOTTE RD
k
!
oo
r ook
ook
Br
w
lo
ol ll
Br
H Hi
SILV ER ST
oo
k ud er
sB
r M URG RD ! Be e c
h
HINE S B
be
Ca
Mc
Bi
ng
h am
Br o
ok
Figure 7: Land Use of Laplatte Watershed

Agriculture Urban
Barren Urban-Open
Brush Water Location
Forest Wetland
Land use data is from an "improved" version of

NLCD 2001 using ancillary GIS data and Landsat
satellite imagery produced by UVM Spatial
Analysis Lab.

UVM course NR-243, December 18, 2010.
Updated by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. March 24, 0 1 2 3 4
Miles
agricultural land with some areas of forest. The land use map illustrates the road network
connecting the village centers in the watershed.
Stormwater contribution was estimated to be 38% from Agricultural/ Open Space and 62% from
Urban/Developed Land. These contributions were estimated using a method outlined in the
TMDL for Munroe Brook, an adjacent watershed (VTDEC 2008). Generally, Agriculture and
Barren Land were lumped into the Agriculture/Open Space category and Urban and Urban-Open
were combined in the Urban/Developed Land and other categories are assumed to be in their
natural state with no unnatural impervious surfaces. Average values for impervious surface in
each category are used to determine an estimation of runoff for each Landuse category.
Table 4: Summary of Landuse in LaPlatte River Watershed
Area Percent
Class
(acres) Area (%)
Agriculture 13,434 40
Barren 4 0
Brush 1,595 5
Forest 13,151 39
Urban 2,734 8
Urban-Open 2,075 6
Water 356 1
Wetland 421 1
4.2 Impervious Cover
As part of this study an improved GIS impervious cover layer was created at the UVM Spatial
Analysis Laboratory (Appendix B). The impervious cover was calculated using 2008 National
Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery and GIS layers of roads and streams. The new
impervious cover map is an improved combined representation of roads, buildings, driveways
and other impervious areas in the watershed (Figure 8). The LaPlatte River watershed was
calculated to be 3.6% impervious surface.
Impervious area was examined by subwatershed to provide an overview of the stream reaches
that are receiving runoff from higher amounts of impervious area. Thresholds of impervious
cover below which water quality and stream conditions deteriorate have been found to range
between 5 and 10 % (e.g., Brabec, Schulte et al. 2002; CWP 2003; Schiff and Benoit 2007).
LaPlatte River subwatersheds had low to moderate amounts of impervious cover except at the
village centers of Shelburne (M04 = 19.7 %; T1.03 = 19.6 %) and Hinesburg (M16 = 14 %) that
had the highest amount of impervious cover (Figure 9). McCabe’s Brook subwatersheds in the

western section of the watershed and Patrick Brook subwatersheds in the eastern part of the
watershed had moderate amounts of impervious cover (4-5 %).
The level of connection between impervious cover and stream channel must be considered to
fully understand the stormwater risks to streams. Impervious cover that conveys stormwater
directly to channels via pipes and short swales rapidly following a storm event pose greater risks
to stream health than when the flow is stored and delayed prior to discharging to the channel.
Although impervious cover tends to be low to moderate in the LaPlatte River watershed, field
observations indicate that the imperviousness is often located close to the stream channels and
that treatment is typically limited or non-existent. Opportunities exist to mitigate existing
untreated stormwater discharge at specific locations receiving the majority of runoff from village
centers (see Section 8.0).
New stormwater treatment opportunities are identified by the proximity of high infiltration sites
with permeable soils (HSG A and B) to areas having dense impervious cover. Impervious cover
density was determined by identifying the number of impervious features (i.e., buildings, roads,
and driveways from the Emergency 911 GIS database) per acre (Figure 10). The number of
impervious feature point locations were averaged over an area to determine density, as described
in Appendix B. Some areas in Shelburne and Hinesburg village centers indicate good stormwater
treatment potential as high impervious cover density is located close to soils suitable for
infiltration.

HARBO
BAY
R D
$
RD
R RD
D
TER R
HIL L
WE B S
OA K
Shelburne Village
SPE AR ST
ST
!
SET
FALLS RD
DOR
RD
W ICK
RD
BO S T
THO M
ND
AS R
D
MO
CH
RI
SH
DORS EL
B UR
RD
NE
ok
MOUNT PHIL O RD
ET ST
FA B ro
PO ND
LL ic k
S D tr
RD UR Pa
La P atte R iv
l CV
NORTH
a n al
er
SP E A R
Mc C
kC
Pa t
r ic
a be s B
RD
Hinesburg Village
ST
CHA RLOTTE RD
k
!
oo
r o ok
oo k
Br
w
o
oll
i ll
Br
H
SILV ER ST
oo
k ud rH
r M URG RD ! he
sB HINE S B B ee c
be
Ca
Mc
Bi
ng
ham
B ro
ok
Figure 8: Impervious Cover from Imagery Data

Impervious Cover Location
National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP)
2008 imagery data were used to produce the
impervious cover presented on this map and
visible as background images. Normalized
Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) values less
than -0.22 were used to determine impervious
area.

2010.
Miles
HARBO
R RD
M01
5.7%
T1.01
$
RD
T1.02 0.1%
4.5% M02
HIL L
8.4% T4.08
M03 2.9%
OA K
9.7%
T1.03
Shelburne
T1.0319.6% Village
8.2%
ST
! M04 M05
6% 7.4%
SET
T1.04 M04
DOR
TH
4.3% 19.7% T4.07
RD
M06
O
3%
MA
4.3%
ND
M06
SR
10.2%
MO
M09
CH
D
M09S3.01 M12S5.01
T1.05 M07 3.7%
RD
T4.06
RI
3.1% 2.7% T4.05
4.4% M06 4.8% 8.5%
PO ND
2.4% M13S3.01 5%
M08
SH 2.3%
2.8% EL
DORS
McC a b
M06S2.01 B T4.03
4.7% UR 5.6%
NE
ET ST
FA
es Bro ok
T1.06 LL
MOUNT PHIL O RD
M10 S M15S2.01 T4.04

3.9% RD 8.3%
T2.02 2.8% L aP la t t 6.6%
T1.07 Ri
2% e
v
0.1% M12 e r M14 M15S2.01
1.8% 1.2% T4.02 T5.01
T2.01 M11 M13 9.9%
2.7% 3.8%
3.5% 3% 1.7%
Hinesburg Village
T2.03 M15 T4.01
0.3% T3.01 1.9% M16 21.5%
3.5% !14%
T1.08
ook
E RD
East Charlotte Village CHARLO TT M16
4.1% ll
Br
T2.04 6.2% Hi
ok M16
ro 2.5% ! M11S4.01 T3.02 h er
2.7% Be e c
sB T2S1.01 2.5% 0.2%
be
NORTH RD
Ca 2.1%
Mc
SP E A R
T2.06
T3.03
ST
2.1% M17
SILVE R ST
1.9% 2.6% M19

T2.05 0.1%
3.5% T2S2.01
T2S1.02 M18
0%
2.2% 2.7%
T2S2.02
1.3%
Figure 9: Percent Impervious by Subwatershed Area

Percent Impervious
0.0 - 2.4
Location
Data was based on Interpretation of NAIP
imagery as seen in Figure 8. Values shown on 2.5 - 4.9
the map represent the percentage of total area
covered by impervious cover for each 5.0 - 7.4
subwatershed.
7.5 - 10.0
UVM course NR-243, December 18, 2009. > 10
Updated by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. March 24,
2010.
0 1 2 3 4
Miles
HARBO
BAY
R D $
RD
R RD
D
TER R
HIL L
WE B S
OA K
Shelburne Village
SPE AR ST
ST
!
SET
FA LLS RD
DOR
D
ICK R
RD
W
BO S T
THO M
ND
AS R
D
MO
CH
RI
SH
EL
DORS
B UR
RD
NE
k
ro o
ET ST
MOUNT PHIL O RD
FA
l PO ND
LL kB
S RD tric
RD U Pa
La P atte R iv e
l CV
C an a
r
SP E A R
Mc C
ick
a tr
P
a bes B r
Hinesburg Village
NORTH
ST
k
!
oo
o ok
Br
w
CHARLOTT E RD
lo
RD
ol
H k
oo
k ud ro
o
sB
r M URG RD ! H i ll B
HINE S B he r
be Be e c
Ca
Mc
Bi
ng
SILVE R ST
h am
B ro
ok
Figure 10: Density of Impervious Features

Possible Infiltration Site
Good (HSG A)
Average (HSG B) Location

Impervious density was determined by point
density of features in the Emergency 911 GIS Impervious Features per Acre
database including structures, roads, and
driveways. Points to represent roads and
driveways were created every 100 linear feet.
Infiltration sites are based on soil classifications
.5
2
-1
-2
.5
of A (Good) and B (Average) using NRCS

-0
>
-1
51
51
hydrologic soils classificiaion.

0
11
0.
1.
1.

UVM course NR-243, December 18, 2009. 0 1 2 3 4
Updated by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. March 24, Miles
2010.
5.0 Subwatershed Hydrology
5.1 Runoff Analysis
The amount of runoff generated from a precipitation event or thaw is primarily a function of
watershed soil types and land cover. As land becomes increasingly compacted, cleared, and
covered with impervious surface a larger volume of water will run off the land rather than
infiltrate. Land use conversion also tends to shorten the amount of time it takes for water to
travel to the receiving body. The increased volume and shortened time for water to reach the
stream contribute to increasing peak flood discharges, volumes, and water surface elevations in
the river. As the flow changes, the channel adjusts to attempt to regain the balance between water
and sediment (Lane 1955). Erosion of bed and banks, and downstream sediment deposition is
often associated with channel adjustment.
An estimation of the runoff volume (acre-feet) from each subwatershed was calculated using the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS, now NRCS) runoff curve number method. A rainfall of 2.1
inches associated with the 1-year, 24-hour duration storm was used for runoff calculations
(VTDEC 2002). LaPlatte River soils, land cover, and impervious cover maps were used to
develop area-weighted, composite curve numbers for each subwatershed (SCS 1986). Curve
number assignments were fine-tuned based on field observations. Estimated runoff volumes are
normalized by watershed area, or presented as the 1-year runoff depth, in order to facilitate
comparisons between the subwatersheds (Figure 11).
Subwatersheds in the village centers of both Shelburne and Hinesburg have the largest amount of
runoff. High runoff volumes were calculated on the LaPlatte River (M04 village section) and
McCabe’s Brook (T1.03) in Shelburne Village and the Canal (T4.01) and LaPlatte River (M16
village sections) in Hinesburg Village. Increased runoff was anticipated in the village centers, yet
the relatively high runoff volumes throughout the watershed based on low infiltration capacity
associated with the dominance of poorly drained soils is not intuitive. These data suggest that
rural stormwater runoff is more likely to flow to streams and rivers than infiltrate. The outcome
of this analysis further illustrates the importance of protecting potential stormwater treatment
locations.
Upstream stormwater runoff will influence downstream locations. Runoff volume estimates
presented do not explicitly consider the timing of runoff or the cumulative effect of runoff from
upstream watershed locations. More detailed hydrology models travel times and subwatershed
position to generate hydrographs to show cumulative effects of runoff as it is collected and flows
down a river. This level of modeling requires additional time and information and is needed for
project design and implementation. The detailed influence of existing stormwater infrastructure
was also not directly included in this initial analysis. Runoff curve numbers assume the presence

of some collection systems in urban areas, but do not include specific storage and discharge
associated with collection and detainment stormwater systems.
5.2 Prioritization from Runoff Analysis
A GIS analysis was performed to prioritize subwatersheds for stormwater mitigation based on
existing conditions. A ranking was calculated from percent impervious cover and runoff volume.
Each variable was normalized by the maximum value in the watershed, summed, and divided by
two for a combined possible rank of zero to one. A value of one indicates the subwatershed with
the highest stormwater threat where stormwater treatment projects should be prioritized.
The prioritization exercise confirmed that the village centers subwatersheds should be the focus
for stormwater mitigation (Figure 12, Table 5). Priority subwatersheds include sections of the
LaPlatte River (M04 and M06 villages), McCabe’s Brook (T1.03) in Shelburne Village, and the
Canal (T4.01, T4.04) and LaPlatte River (M16 village) in Hinesburg Village. The Patrick Brook
(M15.S2) reaches were also identified as high priority.
Table 5: Subwatersheds ranked by Stormwater Runoff Risk

Percent Runoff
Area Runoff
Phase 2 Reach Stream Impervious Depth
(acres) Rank
Area (%) (inches)
M04, Shelburne Village Section LaPlatte River 167 19.7 1.18 0.96
T1.03, Village Green Section McCabe Brook 168 19.6 0.93 0.85
T4.01 Patrick Brook Canal 71 21.5 0.82 0.85
M16, Lower, Saputo Section LaPlatte River 96 14.0 0.72 0.63
M15.S2.01, Commerce Park Section Patrick Brook 229 9.9 0.67 0.51
T1.03, School Street Section McCabe Brook 219 8.2 0.72 0.49
M05 LaPlatte River 238 7.4 0.67 0.45
M06, Shelburne Village Section LaPlatte River 236 10.2 0.47 0.44
M15S2.01, Ballards Corner Section Patrick Brook 300 6.6 0.62 0.42
M16, Middle, Silver Street Section LaPlatte River 259 6.2 0.62 0.41
T4.04 Patrick Brook 191 8.3 0.50 0.41
Possible infiltration sites were overlaid on the stormwater threat ranking to identify areas where
soils would be suitable for infiltration. The potential exists for infiltration-based stormwater
mitigation in select locations in most of the priority watersheds. These possible treatment sites
should be investigated further for verification of infiltration capacity based on soil mapping,
proximity to potential development sites, and identification of parcel information.

HARBO
R RD
M01
80
T1.01
$
RD
T1.02 83
79 M02
HIL L
70 T4.08
M03 79
OA K
72
T1.03
Shelburne
T1.03 86 Village
82
FA L LS
ST
! M04 M05
75 81
SET
T1.04 M04
RD
DOR
TH
80 90 T4.07
RD
M06
O
80
MA
81
ND
M06
SR
76
MO
M09
D
CH
M09S3.01 M12S5.01
80
RD
T1.05 M07 T4.06
RI
82 80 T4.05
77 M06 80 72
PO ND
79 M13S3.01 80
M08 79
SH
64 EL
DORS
McC a b
M06S2.01 B T4.03
80 UR 80
NE
ET ST
FA
e s B r o ok
T1.06 LL
MOUNT PHIL O RD
M10 S M15S2.01 T4.04

80 RD 77
80 L a P la 80
T2.02 t
T1.07 Ri
79
te
77 M12 ve
r M14 M15S2.01
79 79 T4.02 T5.01
T2.01 M11 M13 81
80 72
79 80 79
Hinesburg Village
T2.03 M15 T4.01
79 T3.01 75 M16 84
80 ! 82
T1.08
oo k
CHARLOTT E RD
M16
79
i ll
Br
T2.04 80
oo
k M11S4.01 T3.02 M16 rH
r 80 ! 76 he
sB T2S1.01 80 79 B ee c
be
NORTH RD
Ca
79
Mc
SP E A R
T2.06
T3.03
ST
79 M17
SILVE R ST
79 77 M19
T2.05 75
80 T2S2.01
T2S1.02 M18
80
79 70
T2S2.02
80
Figure 11: Runoff Volume

acre-feet / acre
0.012 - 0.030
Total runoff volumes were determined according 0.031 - 0.045 Location
to standard SCS runoff calculations. Curve
Numbers (CN) were determined from combination 0.046 - 0.050
of HSG, landcover, impervious surface and
averaging values over each subwatershed .
Runoff Volume was calculated for the 1-year, 24- 0.051 - 0.055
hour storm event for Chittenden County (2.1
inches). Subwatersheds are labeled with CN 0.056 - 0.060
values used in calculation.
0.061 - 1.000
UVM course NR-243, December 18, 2009. 0 1 2 3 4
Updated by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. March 29, Miles
2010.
HARBO
R RD
M01
0.4
T1.01
$
RD
T1.02 0.33
0.35 M02
HIL L
0.31 T4.08
M03 0.32
OA K
0.37
T1.03
Shelburne
T1.03 0.85 Village
0.49
FA L LS
ST
! M04 M05
0.32 0.45
SET
T1.04 M04
RD
DOR
TH
0.36 0.96 T4.07
RD
M06
O
0.33
MA
0.38
ND
M06
SR
0.44
MO
M09
D
CH
M09S3.01 M12S5.01
0.35
RD
T1.05 M07 T4.06
RI
0.38 0.33 T4.05
0.31 M06 0.38 0.34
PO ND
0.3 M13S3.01 0.38
M08 0.3
SH
0.13 EL
DORS
M06S2.01 B T4.03
0.37 UR 0.39
NE
ET ST
FA
T1.06 LL
MOUNT PHIL O RD
M10 S M15S2.01 T4.04

0.36 RD 0.41
0.33 0.42
T2.02
T1.07
0.29
0.22 M12 M14 M15S2.01
0.29 0.27 T4.02 T5.01
T2.01 M11 M13 0.51
0.33 0.23
0.33 0.33 0.29
Hinesburg Village
T2.03 M15 T4.01
NORTH
0.25 T3.01 0.23 M16 0.85
0.35 ! 0.63
T1.08
CHARLOTT E RD
M16
0.34
RD
T2.04 0.41
M11S4.01 T3.02 M16
0.32 ! 0.26
T2S1.01 0.32 0.25
HINESBURG RD 0.3
SP E A R
T2.06
T3.03
ST
0.29 M17
SILVE R ST
0.29 0.27 M19

T2.05 0.19
0.35 T2S2.01
T2S1.02 M18
0.26
0.3 0.18
T2S2.02
0.3
Figure 12: Ranking by Impervious Cover and Runoff Volume

Rank Value Possible Infiltration Site
0.13 - 0.25 Good (HSG A)
0.26 - 0.30 Average (HSG B) Location

Ranking was based on percent impervious
surface and runoff volume, both normalized by 0.31 - 0.35
maximum values. A high values indicate high
percent impervious and/or large runoff volumes. 0.36 - 0.40
Infiltration sites are based on soil classification of
A (Good) and B (Average) using NRCS hydrologic
soils classification.
0.41 - 0.50
Map originally created by Mark Suozzo as part of 0.51 - 1.00

2010. Miles
6.0 Stormwater Infrastructure
6.1 Mapping Procedures
Stormwater infrastructure shown on plans of stormwater permits on file with the DEC
Stormwater Section was digitized into GIS to begin to develop stormwater infrastructure maps.
Stormwater infrastructure includes linear features such as stormwater pipes, swales, and culverts.
Point features such as catch basins, manholes, drop inlets, detention ponds, and outfalls were also
digitized. Methods and map symbols (Figure 13) for the stormwater infrastructure mostly
follows DEC Stormwater Section conventions.
Digitized stormwater information was added to existing stormwater mapping compiled by the
CCRPC in 2006. The state-permitted stormwater systems in Shelburne in the CCRPC GIS
database had been field checked by the Shelburne Director of Public Works. Corrections based
on this field verification have been incorporated into the updated mapping. Newly installed
stormwater systems were also included from plans available at DEC. Additional field
verification was completed via a windshield survey of the watershed.
Hinesburg and Charlotte did not have stormwater infrastructure mapping in place prior to this
project. Following digitization of DEC stormwater plans, the village centers and areas of dense
development were explored on foot and stormwater infrastructure was located with GPS. A
windshield survey of the rural areas of the watershed was completed to note general runoff
patterns and confirm road ditch drainage directions. The current stormwater infrastructure maps
are provided with this report in electronic format (Appendix A).
The stormwater infrastructure map shows that very little of the watershed area contains
infrastructure that falls under the jurisdiction of the state. This even extends to limited regulatory
oversight in more developed village centers as infrastructure was in place prior to the start of
permitting in the 1970’s or some infrastructure does not meet permitting thresholds (greater than
1 acre of impervious surface, unless in a designated stormwater impaired watershed where
stricter standards apply). State-permitted infrastructure conveys stormwater for approximately
25% of Shelburne Village (M04, M06, T1.03), 15% of Hinesburg Village (M16, M15S2, T4.01),
and 0 % of East Charlotte Village (T2.01). This is an expected finding with so many rural
locations, yet highlights the fact that management of stormwater is mostly an issue for Town’s to
address in the LaPlatte River watershed.
A description of runoff in subwatersheds focusing on stormwater infrastructure follows. The

presence of stormwater collection systems, description of drainage areas, and description of
discharge locations are provided to highlight potential mitigation areas. Developed areas that
have received an operational stormwater permit under the jurisdiction of the state are described

as “permitted” or “regulated”, whereas areas with no record of an operational permit are
described as “non-permitted” or “unregulated.”
Figure 13: Legend showing symbols and stormwater infrastructure categories for Figures 14-22.
6.2 Shelburne Village
Shelburne has a developed central village surrounded by a network of residential neighborhoods

interspersed with agriculture fields and tracts of forestland. Stormwater infrastructure is
centralized along Route 7 and clustered around the village center (Figure 14). Some
neighborhoods in the more rural sections of Shelburne have stormwater collection systems that
can be seen on the full infrastructure map (Appendix A). Shelburne village drains to the lower
sections of the LaPlatte River to the east (M4, M6) and McCabe’s Brook to the west (T1.3).
The LaPlatte River meets Lake Champlain north of Shelburne village. Reach M1 is small and
rural, and receives runoff from Spinnaker Lane, a permitted system, and unregulated runoff from
Bay Road. Moving upstream, the LaPlatte River receives collected stormwater from a section of
Route 7 (reach M2), as well as permitted and treated runoff from Athletic Drive and the
2
!!
M03
*
# "
)
)
"
DR
3421-9010
N
M _
^ )
"
L
CH ES AP EAKE
cC
ST
ab
"
)
TURT L
E
GARD
ACORN LN
es
RV
ENS ID
E LN
B
""
)
HA
) )
"
)
"
LN E
ro
ok
T1.03 L aP l
a
F U
R _!UUR
^ Ri
R
tt e
DEP
OT R
D
_
^ 3744-9015"
v 3203-9010
"
)
)
"
R ) #"
)
er
)U
" *
C DR
D
UR # "
* ) )
"
NE R
)
"
3913-9010 R 2
!
AT HL E TI
)
" ) "
!
" )
BUR
H
*
# ) ARBOR RD
MC C
"
)
" U
R
L
)"
")"))
SHE
) "
" ) " SHE L B
M04
"
ABE
)
"
)
" ) "
)
" URNE
LN
) "
" ) " )
)
")
")
" )
" W OOD "
)
)
" )"
)" )" DR
2
)T
! "))" )"
AD
C IR
)
"
er
!
)"
"
OL S
) )
"
CR
Ri v
RO
LN
)"
" ) "
"
EE
_
^ ) )"
)" ) ) !
O
KS )
" 2
IL
" !)2
DRGE
I )"
" !!")
SC H
D )
" ) )
"
"
La Pla t te
RA
ED "
3919-9010
)"
" )
") " )
4954-9010
)
L ETA
R )
"
VCAO T
)"
")"
) *
#
*
# )
"
)
" )
" )
"
)"
")
GE
)
" )"
"
)"
") "
)
)
" ) ! " )"
)
_
^ 2
!
A
F IS)A
V
)
")
"
LL
)
"
)
"
DAV "
)
"
LN
VI
) " ) )
" PK
)SHELBURNE SHOPPING
)"
") " "
)
ER
)
" )
" )
")
" ) "
" )
"
)
"
H
ST
TC
)
"
O
)
" )
"
KE
)
"
FL E
_
^
F )
")
" ) CH U
"
FALL S
R
S
)
" CH
)
" )
" ST
_
^
LN
)
"
) "
" ) )"
"))
" 2
!)
"
!
)
"
UM
)
")
"
U
RD
2
!)
"
R
US E
!)
"
3921-9010 T
)
"
HERITAGE"LN ) RAC
"
)
"
3920-9010
)"
)
)
"
_!UR") ")")
^
NE M
)
" Y " )"
"
)"
) )" ) "
" )
_
^ 2 )
"
!) 2
!" ! 2
)
"
)
"! *
# ! 2
)
)
"
! !!
LN *
# " )
)
" U )
"
R ""
))
2
)"
" )
" )
" )
" )
"
US E UM
)
BUR
)
"
T1.04
)
")
" ) "
" )
"
)"
) " )"
) " )
L
) "
"
SHE
)
RNE M
)
")
")
" )"
")
)"
" )
)") 2
!! ")") ") )"
")
)
"
)
")"
" ) 2
" !
! )
" ) 3139-9015
)"
"
_
^
U
) " ) ) ""
)
SHE L B
)"
"
C
"NN )"
") * #
HILLS IDE TE RR
C )
"
"
2
!! )
" )"
"
)
")"
)
)
"
"
)
)"
" )
"
) )
"
)"
") "
)"
") )
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
")"
")
)"
" )2
!!! _
^ La
R ""
)" )"
")
Pl U ) )
)
" ) "
" 2
! !
_
^ ) )
" "
LIM
)
"
atte R
)
" )"
") ) )
" )
"
)
" )
" )"
" )
)
" 2
! RD " iv e
E
)
" E S
!
)
")
" W
RIC
)
" )
" )
" )"
") ))
"
)
"
3338-9010 2
!!")") _
^ M05
K
)
"
r
RD
)
" )"
") IR
) LAPLATTE C
*
# )
"
)
" )"
") )"
"
)
"
TIM B ER
RD
MEADOW
)
"
)"
) LL
HI
)
" "
)
" RR I SH
L L TE
)
"
A IR
LN
T1.05 KIMB " ))"

) M06 "
AD
) "
LN
)" ))
er "
" )
" )"
v
Ri
)" )
BL AC K W IL
D IE
T TR D )
" ) "
" )" )"
") )"
")
te
_
^
F
lat
LN
MA R S E )
")
" )
"
)
"
MA P L E
)
"
L aP
)" ) )
")
" )
"
)" BA CO N DR 2
ICK R D
" !
)!
"
BO ST W 2
!
)
" )
"
)!
"
_
^
LOW LN
3673-9010
RD
)
"
W OOD
)"
") )"
" )
) 2
JOHN ST
)"
) )"
") " !
)"
" !
)
SH
")
" )
")
"
GREEN HILLS DR
*
#
U
R
EB
DR
)"
")
2
LN
!
L
U !
)"
")
EP
RT
)"
")
_
^ )"
")
E
C Y NO !2
2 ! _
^
ST
KE
!
F
THO
SUR
!
LITT LEF IELD DR
E DR 3528-9010TI LN"
OC
)
# 3784-9010
RIVERVALE RD
2
!
)
"
M
!
)"
" ) "
" )
3785-9010
) *
MO U N
AS
"
)
CO VINGTO
*
#
N LN
! 2
2 !
)
"
)
"
! ! )"
")
RD
*
#
3564-9010
T PH IL
2
!
E DR
DR
LOW E R
)
" ""
)) !
M
*
# )
"
cC
MIDDLE TER RAC E
3372-9010
))
""
))
" )
"
AC
)
"
R )
"
O RD
) " )"
"
ab
" )))
" )
"
"
) )
"
)
"
R
UPPE R TE RR
) "
TE R R AC
)*#"
_
^
e
)
" U
sB
" ) "
" )
roo
R
U
Subwatershed Boundary
E DR
k
GING ER LN
WIL D "
) )
"
Field Verified AIR PARK
RD La P la tt
M06S2.01
eR
RIDG EF IE
Mapped Topography Only
LD RD F _
^
iv e
)
"
_
^
FUR
r
Shelburne Village
µ
)
" )
"
) ) 0 250 500 1,000
)
" "*
) " "
"
) )#
")
"
Stormwater Infrastructure
) )
"
Feet
)
" " )
"
1233 Shelburne Road, Suite 150 DATE: SHEET:

South Burlington, VT 05403 LaPlatte River Watershed March 2010
(802) 864-1600 Fax: (802) 864-1601 Stormwater Project SCALE: Figure 14
www.miloneandmacbroom.com 1" = 1,000'
businesses off of Route 7 and a section of unregulated housing without a collection system in the
vicinity of Webster Road. A ditch along a section of Route 7 and residential neighborhoods
along Shelburnewood Drive, Gardenside Lane, and Acorn Lane carry stormwater to the river
north of the village (M3). Of these collection systems, only Acorn Lane is permitted and includes
treatment.
The village is roughly comprised of two subwatersheds with the area to the east of Route 7
draining to the LaPlatte River (M04) and the area to the west draining to McCabe’s Brook
(T1.03). The reach M04 subwatershed was divided into two areas based on varying land use and
stormwater discharge locations.
A small tributary that collects the majority of the developed land in the subwatershed was split
from the rest of M04. This subwatershed receives runoff from the village center including the
area approximately between Route 7 and Falls Road from Church Street south to Covington
Lane. The neighborhoods in this subwatershed are older and mainly constructed prior to state-
mandated stormwater treatment. The Town holds a permit for the northern part of Maplewood
Drive and Steeplebush Road, but no significant treatment is included in this system. Multiple
collection systems comprised of catch basins and pipe outfalls without treatment exist in this area
that should be targeted for improvement.
The mostly forested eastern portion of the M04 subwatershed draining directly to the LaPlatte
Mainstem was isolated. This subwatershed contains one large development off of Thompson
Road that has a recent stormwater treatment system and permit. This subwatershed does have
some residential properties along Marsette Road and LaPlatte Circle that do not have treatment
or state stormwater permits.
Upstream on the LaPlatte, reach M05 has a rural subwatershed to the east of the village with
little existing stormwater infrastructure. Although rural with minimal infrastructure, this
subwatershed was identified as having a high percent of impervious cover and runoff potential.
Rural development off of Irish Hill Road and Thompson Road does not have stormwater permits
or collection or treatment systems. A small development at the upper end of the subwatershed,
Cedar Ridge Drive does have a permit held by the Town and treatment.
The M06 drainage was broken down to isolate three subwatersheds with different runoff
characteristics. The western section contains a tributary with a rural watershed to the east of
Thomas Road with little stormwater infrastructure. Another divide was made where the
M06.S2.01 tributary enters the mainstem. This divide separates the rural southern section from
the northwest section with dense residential development. The developed portion of M06
receives runoff from a few older neighborhoods in the vicinity of John Street, Littlefield Drive,
and Wild Ginger Lane. Treatment ponds exist for several of these systems and a significant

portion is under permits held by the Town. An outfall between John Street and Littlefield Drive
collects overland and ditch flow from a section of Mt. Philo Road, as well as effluent from the
treatment pond collecting from the southern section of Maplewood Drive, Lower Terrace and
Wild Ginger Lane. Treatment should be explored at this outfall to treat the portion of runoff from
Mt. Philo Road.
McCabe’s Brook joins the LaPlatte River near Lake Champlain, and the McCabe’s Brook
watershed makes up the western edge of the LaPlatte River watershed. The lower reaches are
rural with no stormwater infrastructure and include a backwatered section near the confluence
and agricultural land mostly associated with Shelburne Farms. T1.03 extends from just
downstream of the Town Garage to upstream of Heritage Lane. This reach was split at the
Harbor Road crossing due to a large stormwater collection system entering on the downstream
side. The collection system that runs down Harbor Road collects stormwater from Shelburne
Museum, the Village Green, businesses on Route 7, part of the Shelburne Elementary School,
and Harbor Road. This currently untreated large system may have opportunities for treatment
before reaching the outfall. Only the Elementary School has a stormwater permit. The Town
Garage also drains to this subwatershed and has a permit held by the Town and treatment in
place.
Upstream of Harbor Road multiple outfalls exist along McCabe’s Brook. Many of these are
catch basin and pipe systems in older residential neighborhoods that do not appear to have
stormwater treatment. They include Heritage Lane, Tracy Lane, Fletcher Lane, Stokes Lane,
Creekside Drive, and School Street. Only Heritage Lane and a section of Tracy Lane have
permits, both held by the Town. Non-permitted systems should be explored for specific
improvements that could be made. These streets drain to the McCabe’s Brook with little
available non-wetland space for systems.
The remaining parts of the watershed in Shelburne include upper reaches of McCabe’s Brook
and drainage to small tributaries of the LaPlatte River. These areas are primarily rural with little
existing development or stormwater infrastructure or stormwater permits. The Teddy Bear
Factory does have a permit and is the only additional property with significant infrastructure.
6.3 Hinesburg Village
The portion of the LaPlatte River watershed in Hinesburg is mostly open space or rural
residential. Some of the rural developed areas have dedicated stormwater collection and
treatment systems, but most rely on ditches or overland flow for conveyance of surface runoff.
The densest development in Hinesburg is in the village center along Route 116 from Commerce
Street south to the Hinesburg Community School (Figure 15). LaPlatte River reaches M15

HAW K LN
T4.02
_
^
F 3034-9010
ck Br o o k R MU
P a t ri
F
_
^ *
# LB
ER
RY
L N
RO
U
)
"
TE
T
)
" )
" _
^ U^
_
) RCE S
116
"
) )
" U
!
)O)MM E
"
""
) R
C
" )
" )
"
R U "
) )
" )
" )
"
)4376-INDC
)
" )
"
"
"
) )
"
#4376-9015.1
* )
" )
"
3783-9010
)
" )
" )
"
)4376-9015
)
" "
)
)
"
""
))
)
" "
)
"
*
# )
" )
" )"
")
TH
O
)
"
3583-9015
RN
)
"
_2
^
BU
""
) *
# !! )
"
F
SH
)
)")
Y)
"
DR IC W "
) E
RD
FR
" )
"
)
"
RD
"
)
_
^ L E
IL
)"
" )
2
! LD
R SV
!
IC
"
)
AL
M"
)
"
N
_
^
FAR ) A
RD
_
^ H
EC
""
)
S
) )
"
La
HT
"
)
M
Pl
)
"
IG
)
"
at
HE
R
te
Pa trick Ca na l
GE
_
^
Ri
T4.01
A
F _
^
LL
ve
VI
r
M16
)
"
3690-9010
))
" ""
)
"
)
)"
" ) )
"
*
# )"
" )
2
!"
!)
KEL LEYS FIEL D RD
)
" )
"
_
^ _ ^
^ _
"
)
)
"
_ ")
^
ST E
R")
LL A
D R
LaP
la tte
O TT E RD
CH ARL
4323-9015 2
!
!C é
Ri ve
)
" " "
)
3281-9010
OW
^
_ *
#
r
_
^ *
#^_ ")
M E AD
)
"
_
^
N
)
"
LYM A
RK RD
LYM AN PA
_
^
)
" _
^
)
"
)
" 2
!"
!)
OR CH AR
LN
)
"
2
)
"
! ) "
) "
" )
FR IENDSHIP
!
)"
" ) "
) " "
) )
))
" )
"
"
_
^
3570-9010"
D HIL L
)
F
_
^
)
" *
# )
" )
"
)
"
)
"
_ ")
^ _
^ ^ ")
_
2
!
!
FLaPlat te Riv^
er
)
" )
"
FF _
Subwatershed Boundary _
^
SILVER ST
Field Verified
Mapped Topography Only
µ
F
Hinesburg Village F 0 125 250 500
Stormwater Infrastructure Feet

www.miloneandmacbroom.com 1" = 500'
(downstream/northern section) and M16 (upstream/southern section) receive runoff from this
area.
At the northern end of the village, the LaPlatte River reach M15 remains mostly rural with little
existing stormwater infrastructure. However, this reach receives flow from Patrick Brook and
the Patrick Canal that both receive runoff from densely developed sections of the village. Patrick
Brook (M15.S2.01) receives runoff from NRG, businesses on Commerce Street, a section of
Route 116, and part of Champlain Valley Union High School (CVU). NRG has treatment in
place and is permitted. CVU has multiple detention ponds in place and a state permit. Runoff
from the eastern section of Commerce Street is permitted and follows a path either north or south
to one of two detention ponds. A series of ditches along Route 116 collects runoff from the
western section of Commerce Street and business along the eastern side of Route 116, including
a significant amount of impervious area before discharging directly to Patrick Brook. This non-
permitted collection system should be examined for treatment prior to outfall. Additional non-
permitted impervious areas include development and road runoff along Shelburne Falls Road,
CVU Road, Route 116, and Pond Road.
Patrick Brook has been altered in this area to include a bypass canal that is considered as a
separate stream reach (T4.01) that runs parallel to Mechanicsville Road. The canal joins the
LaPlatte River at the upstream end of M15. This subwatershed receives runoff from permitted
systems in residential neighborhoods along Thorn Bush Road, Village Heights Road, Fredric
Way, and part of the former Saputo property. The GIS topography mapped the edge of this
subwatershed along the centerline of Fredric Way. Field verification of the stormwater systems
showed that runoff from the entire Fredric Way neighborhood is collected and routed to the
detention pond at the southwest corner of the watershed (Figure 15). Non-permitted or treated
runoff includes multiple businesses and residences along Route 116 and Mechanicsville Road.
Approximately half of the impervious surface in this subwatershed in non-permitted.
LaPlatte River reach M16 extends from the confluence with the Patrick Canal, just downstream
of the former Saputo property, north to the confluence with Beecher Hill Brook near Beecher
Hill Road. This large subwatershed was split into three areas for analysis based on varying land
use and stormwater input locations. The downstream sub-reach extends to the Charlotte Road
crossing. This area collects water through a ditched tributary that runs along the former Saputo
property, under Route 116 and behind the grocery store, church, and Lyman Meadows
neighborhood. A majority of the village drains to this tributary, including most of the eastern half
of Route 116 through the village. There is a significant amount of impervious surface associated
with the older development that was not required to install stormwater treatments that should be
examined for treatment opportunities. Of the many impervious areas draining to this tributary,
none include significant treatment and only the Saputo factory site, Kelley’s Field Drive, and
Lyman Meadow neighborhood have stormwater permits. Areas with large impervious surfaces

with no permits include businesses along Route 116, specifically the grocery store, church, gas
station, diner/creemee stand, and many residences.
The middle section of M16 includes runoff from the remaining section of the village, from
Charlotte Road upstream past Hinesburg Community School. Ditches along Charlotte Road
collect water from a section of Route 116 with catch basins and pipes. Another series of catch
basins and pipes run along the southwest part of the village and drains to a ditch leading to the
LaPlatte River downstream of Silver Street. Catch basins along Route 116 in front of the
Hinesburg Elementary school, and the area to the east side of Route 116, collect and discharge
stormwater near the corner of Silver Street and Route 116. Erosion is taking place at this outfall
that conveys untreated stormwater to the LaPlatte River in a ditch along Silver Street. This is a
priority treatment location for Hinesburg Village. Hinesburg Community School has two
additional direct discharge locations behind the school. None of the five networks described in
M16 have significant treatment of the stormwater and each should be considered for mitigation.
The only permitted system in this subwatershed is the small lower parking area on the Hinesburg
Community School property. The western section of this subwatershed remains mostly in its
natural forested state with a few homes and fields.
The upper area of M16 is rural and mostly comprised of agricultural fields and forest. Minimal
stormwater infrastructure is in place. Runoff from roads, agricultural fields, and individual
homes is conveyed either in ditches or overland.
6.4 Charlotte Stormwater Infrastructure
The portion of the LaPlatte River watershed within the town of Charlotte is rural with a mix of
agriculture, forest, and rural residential land uses. Stormwater infrastructure is minimal
consisting of only a few rurally located residential developments. Although hard infrastructure
such as catch basins and pipes are limited, the town does have a significant number of roadside
ditches that collect and convey stormwater runoff from paved and dirt roads, and agricultural
fields. Improvement of these networks could have substantial impacts on the receiving waters
and will be generally addressed in later sections of this report.
A study of rural road ditch networks in the region is being sponsored by the Lake Champlain
Basin Program and is slated to begin in Spring of 2010. A key outcome of this study is to
generate estimates of sediment and Phosphorus loading from the road ditch networks in all
Vermont watersheds draining to Lake Champlain. This information will be directly applicable to
understanding the primary stormwater threat from Charlotte, and other rural areas, in the
LaPlatte River watershed.

7.0 Relating Stormwater Scenario to Existing SGA and Water Quality Data
7.1 SGA Data
Phase 1 and 2 assessments have been completed for the LaPlatte River reaches M03-M11 and
McCabe’s Brook tributary reaches T1.02-T1.05 (LWP 2007). Phase 2 was also completed for
Hinesburg reaches including M12-M18 and sections of tributaries including Patrick Brook,
Beecher Hill Brook, the Canal, and an unnamed tributary T3 (LWP 2006). Data were further
analyzed into a Stream Corridor Plan for the LaPlatte River and Tributaries in Town of
Hinesburg (LWP 2007) and Reaches M6-M11 in Towns of Charlotte and Shelburne (LWP
2008), both prepared by the LaPlatte Watershed Partnership. These studies collected information
on stream channel condition that may be related to stormwater impacts.
The Shelburne and Charlotte Corridor plan (LWP 2008) identified multiple hydrologic stressors
that contribute to high stormwater impacts to the channel. These include high road densities in
Shelburne Village, M04, M05, and M06, that leads to large amounts of impervious cover that has
been confirmed by mapping for this study. Bank erosion appears to be most abundant in
subwatersheds with large amounts of impervious cover and the most identified stormwater
outfalls (M06, T1.03, and T1.05). Indicators of stormwater impacts such as gullies and tributary
rejuvenation were seen in M06, M09A, M10, and M11.
The Hinesburg Corridor Plan identified multiple stormwater inputs to the channels and made
suggestions that much of the bank erosion may be related to stormwater runoff (LWP 2007). A
preliminary suggestion was made to look at implementing a village-wide stormwater approach to
address smaller properties that may not be subject to state stormwater permitting.
A few of the watersheds that had a high ranking for risks from stormwater were previously
identified to have Poor and Fair geomorphic conditions including (M06, M16, T1.03, T4.01, and
T4.04) (Table 6). Many of these and downstream subwatersheds had excessive bank erosion.
Stream habitat condition is shown to be Fair or Poor at or downstream of major stormwater

inputs. In Hinesburg, habitat condition was found to be Fair where a portion of the village
stormwater enters the system (M16), while a Poor habitat conditions was identified downstream
of the village stormwater inputs. In Patrick Brook, upper reaches were found to have good
habitat, and downstream reaches (T4.02 and T4.01) had Fair and Poor conditions where
stormwater inputs occur. In Shelburne, habitat condition was Fair where the majority of
stormwater inputs occur (T3.01, M06).

Table 6: Summary of Stream Geomorphic Assessment Data
Depa Geomorphic Evolution Habitat
Segment Town Stream Type Sensitivity
rture Condition Stage Condition
LaPlatte River and Minor Tributaries
M3,M4A Shelburne E5 Dune Ripple Good I High Good
M04B Shelburne C4 Riffle Pool Good I High Good
M06 Shelburne B4c Plane Bed yes Poor IV High Fair
M07 Shelburne B5 Plane Bed Good III Moderate Good
M08 Charlotte C4 Riffle Pool Fair IV Very High Fair
M09A Charlotte B4c Plane Bed Fair IV High Fair
M09B Charlotte C5 Riffle Pool Fair IV Very High Good
M10 Charlotte C5 Riffle Pool Fair IV Very High Fair
M11 Charlotte B4c Dune Ripple Good I Moderate Good
M12 Hinesburg E5 Dune Ripple Good I High Fair
M13 Hinesburg E5 Dune Ripple Good I High Fair
M14 Hinesburg E5 Dune Ripple Good III High Fair
M15A Hinesburg E5 Dune Ripple Fair III Very High Fair
M15B Hinesburg C5c Dune Ripple Fair III Very High Poor
M16 Hinesburg C5 Dune Ripple Fair III Very High Fair
M17 Hinesburg B5c Dune Ripple yes Poor III High Fair
M18A Hinesburg C4 Riffle Pool Fair IIC Very High Good
M18B Hinesburg C4 Riffle Pool Poor II Very High Fair
T3.01 Hinesburg E5 Dune Ripple Good III High Fair
T3.02 Hinesburg C5 Dune Ripple Good IIc High Fair
McCabe's Brook
T1.02 Shelburne E5 Dune Ripple Good III High Good
T1.03 Shelburne E5 Dune Ripple Fair IIc Very High Fair
T1.04A Shelburne N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
T1.04B Shelburne C4 Riffle Pool Fair II Very High Fair
T1.05A Shelburne F4 Riffle Pool yes Poor III Extreme Fair
T1.05B Shelburne C5 Dune Ripple Good IIc High Good
Patrick Brook
M15S2.01 Hinesburg E4 Dune Ripple Good III High Fair
T4.01 Hinesburg C5 Plane Bed Fair II Very High Poor
T4.02 Hinesburg F4 Plane Bed yes Poor III Extreme Fair
T4.03 Hinesburg C4 Riffle Pool Fair III Very High Good
T4.04 Hinesburg B4a Step Pool Fair IIc High Good
T4.06 Hinesburg C4 Riffle Pool Good III High Good
Beecher Hill Brook
T5.01A Hinesburg E5 Dune Ripple Good IIc High Fair
T5.01B Hinesburg E4 Riffle Pool Fair IIc Very High Fair
T5.01C Hinesburg B3 Step Pool Good I Moderate Good
T5.01D Hinesburg F4 Plane Bed yes Poor II Extreme Fair

7.2 Water Quality Data
Water quality monitoring has been completed in the LaPlatte River and McCabe’s Brook by the
LaPlatte Watershed Partnership as part of its Volunteer Monitoring Program starting in 2004.
Data have been compiled and analyzed up through the 2007 monitoring season (LWP 2008).
Concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended solids increased with storm events, and
concentrations of phosphorus were found to be correlated with concentrations of suspended
solids. This report includes data for a relatively short monitoring period, but provides general
suggestions on water quality that may be confirmed as additional data is collected.
Results along the mainstem of the LaPlatte River highlighted a few key areas influenced by
storm flows. The suspended sediment concentrations increase rapidly between the Hinesburg
wastewater treatment plant and Leavensworth Road that have been attributed to bank erosion.
Suspended sediments are diluted down to the Falls Road and slowly increase again to the mouth
of the river at Lake Champlain. Increased suspended sediment is thought to be from stormwater
runoff, bank erosion, and channel scour.
The stormwater runoff in Shelburne Village is suggested by the LWP preliminary report to be a
possible cause of increased total Nitrogen concentrations in the LaPlatte River, corresponding to
the priority subwatersheds identified in the impervious cover and runoff volume ranking (LWP
2008).
Past water quality reporting indicates that “Phosphorus concentrations in McCabe’s Brook are
significantly impacted by storm runoff from agricultural land and large impervious surfaces, as
well as by stormwater runoff from urban/semi-urban areas in downstream stations (LWP,
2008).” These trends generally apply to suspended sediment and nitrogen concentrations. There
were increases in total Nitrogen, suspended solids, and Phosphorus between Bostwick Road and
Harbor Road. Large increases in Phosphorus at the Teddy Bear access road were attributed to
runoff from parking areas and buildings. These water quality results indicate that the identified
stormwater outfalls at both the Teddy Bear Company and neighborhood upstream of Harbor
Road in Shelburne Village should be targeted for stormwater mitigation.
Sampling on Patrick Brook showed increases in turbidity and total Phosphorus between the
Mechanicsville Road and Route 116 crossings. Runoff from the commercial development may
be influencing water quality. This sampling location is upstream of the outfall discharging water
from Route 116 and the gas station on Commerce Road and thus local water quality may be
further reduced than data suggest. Stormwater outfalls along Patrick Brook should be targeted for
stormwater treatment.

Mud Hollow and Bingham Brook tributaries were sampled and showed that when flows are high
the suspended solids and Phosphorus concentrations are high. These watersheds are rural and are
primarily affected by agricultural field runoff.
8.0 Stormwater Treatment Projects and General Recommendations
8.1 Project Identification
Stormwater mitigation project locations have been identified based on the improved
understanding of the existing conditions of the stormwater system. Subwatersheds with high
percent impervious cover, large runoff volumes, and known water quality issues were targeted
for possible mitigation projects. Access to soils with good infiltration capacity is also considered.
Stormwater discharge locations establish point sources of pollution on the landscape where
treatment methods can be applied. Addressing point sources is often a more straight forward
task than dealing with nonpoint source pollution distributed across the landscape. Potential
mitigation projects are sited at or near existing systems and close to proposed growth center
areas. In watersheds such as the LaPlatte with concentrated village center areas with a small
amount of stormwater infrastructure in place, multiple landowners, and minimal access to
permeable soils, stormwater treatment and conveyance should be a primary consideration for
locating future development and designating growth centers.
Due to the dense nature of development in the village setting, stormwater cumulatively collects
from many landowners and it is difficult or impossible for each individual to treat stormwater on
site. In these densely populated areas community-based treatment should be planned,
implemented, and funded by the town. Potential sources of funding for community stormwater
treatment include creation of a Stormwater Utility such as in South Burlington, town taxes, or
pursuing grant funding. Suggestions and additional information for implementation are included
in Section 8.0.
Project implementation in the areas generally identified here would require landowner and town
participation to site a project on a specific parcel. Further analysis and design would be
necessary to develop each project associated with this study and stormwater treatment focused
strategy of growth.
LaPlatte River M04, Shelburne Village
The M04 reach subwatershed was broken into two parts. The subwatershed draining the village
center neighborhoods was identified as a priority watershed based on impervious surface and
runoff volume. This subwatershed is almost entirely developed with older village neighborhoods

with stormwater collection systems that lack treatment facilities. Examination of the stormwater
infrastructure identifies two main collection systems, each collecting approximately half of the
drainage area. The eastern system collects water from Maplewood Drive and Mt. Philo Road,
before discharging into a field off of Mt. Philo Road and eventually flowing to the LaPlatte
River. The discharge location is in a field adjacent to Mt. Philo Road, just north of Wes Road,
where there is available space for stormwater detention and possibly infiltration (Figure 16). A
possible treatment location was highlighted near the Mt. Philo Road for ease of access and
maintenance, although there are permeable soils located in the field farther to the east near the
woods in the field and in the southern section of the fields behind the homes to the south. This is
a walking park and any treatment implemented would need to be designed to complement the
existing recreational uses.
Figure 16: Potential Stormwater Treatment Options in Shelburne Village M04
The other half of the subwatershed collects through a series of catch basins and pipes to two
discharge locations to a small tributary of the LaPlatte River. These outfall locations do not
appear to have available space for end-of-pipe treatment. The potential for treatment near these
outfalls needs to be explored further. It is recommended that this neighborhood be targeted for
stormwater reduction methods such as disconnection of impervious cover, use of pervious
pavement in the future, installation of rain gardens, and use of rain barrels. Low impact

development approaches that amount to decentralized mitigation have been shown to reduce
stormwater runoff volume and nutrient export (Bedan and Clausen 2009).
LaPlatte River M06, Shelburne Village
The M06 reach subwatershed was broken into three parts, the western section including part of
the village was found to have water quality, geomorphic condition, and impervious cover
indicators of stormwater problems. Multiple neighborhoods exist in this subwatershed, some of
which have treatment in place. A system that collects water on Mt. Philo Road and discharges
between John Street and Littlefield Drive is a location where improved treatment is suggested
(Figure 17). This system collects some stormwater treatment pond effluent and part of the
ditches along Mt. Philo Road and leads to a manhole between the neighborhoods. This area is
sloped so a surface detention system would need to be a terraced system to provide multiple
storage cells and adequate residence times. Other options include infiltration techniques or
improvement of the ditch network along Mt. Philo Road to provide treatment before entering the
stormpipes.
Figure 17: Potential Stormwater Treatment Options in Shelburne Village M06

The collection system on John Street currently has a grease trap that stormwater passes through
before discharge to the LaPlatte River. This system could be upgraded for improved stormwater
treatment as a future project. Infiltration practices such as installation of recharge galleys or
establishment of a stormwater detention pond would be appropriate due to soil types in the area
around this outfall.
McCabe’s Brook T1.03, Shelburne Village
McCabe’s Brook subwatershed T1.03 was identified as having high impervious cover, large
runoff volumes, and reduced water quality. T1.03 extends from just downstream of the Town
Garage to upstream of Heritage Lane. The system that runs down Harbor Road collects
stormwater from Shelburne Museum, the village green, businesses on Route 7, part of the
Shelburne Elementary School, and Harbor Road. This large system appears to have opportunities
for treatment before reaching McCabe’s Brook. Two potential detention areas are identified – off
Harbor Road near Athletic Drive and expanding the existing pond behind the Town Garage
(Figure 18). These locations are in the vicinity of wetlands and may not have available space for
a large pond-type treatment option. There may be smaller, decentralized treatment alternatives
for stormwater disconnection such as rain gardens at the school.
Upstream of Harbor Road, there are multiple outfalls along McCabe’s Brook originating from
Heritage Lane, Tracy Lane, Fletcher Lane, Stokes Lane, Creekside Drive, and School Street.
Many of these older stormwater conveyance systems consist of catch basins and pipes, and do
not appear to have treatment facilities. Improvements are recommended at any of these outfalls,
although the close proximity of outfalls to the river corridor may not allow space for detention.
Low impact development techniques should be applied in this neighborhood to reduce
stormwater runoff and increase infiltration. A collection system discharging behind the tennis
courts off of School Street has been targeted for treatment due to available space at the outfall
and the large contributing area. This area is within a Town Park and any treatment would need to
be designed to complement the existing recreational uses. Subsurface treatment options may be
appropriate in this location.

Figure 18: Potential Stormwater Treatment Options in Shelburne Village T3.01
McCabe’s Brook T1.05, Teddy Bear Factory, Shelburne
The Teddy Bear Factory property includes a high percentage of impervious surface from
buildings, parking lots, and the access road. This location was identified by the watershed
volunteer water quality testing as a possible contributor to lower water quality (LWP, 2008). A
stormwater treatment pond does exist on this property and has a state stormwater permit. Further
investigation is needed to confirm water quality results and identify possible improvement at the
site such as re-routing runoff or increasing the amount of runoff volume stored and the duration
of storage.
LaPlatte River M16, Hinesburg Village
LaPlatte River reach M16 extends from the confluence with the Patrick Canal, just downstream
of the former Saputo property, north to the confluence with Beecher Hill Brook. This large
subwatershed was split into three sections for analysis based on stormwater type and input
locations. The lower two subwatersheds have been targeted for stormwater improvement.

A majority of village drains to the tributary in the downstream section of this reach, including
most of the eastern half of Route 116 through the village. Treatment potential exists in this area.
Stormwater could be diverted from the ditched tributary into the existing treatment pond that was
formerly used by the Saputo factory (Figure 19). If this pond will not be used for future plant
operations it would serve as ready-made stormwater detention. Space for other detention areas
exists around the factory site that could be reserved for planned future uses in the area and
village expansion. Permeable soils are mapped in the LaPlatte River corridor in this area
including the western half of the factory site and portions of the fields both to the north and south
of the site which could present opportunities for infiltration based mitigation.
Additional opportunities for stormwater interception are possible in the collection system
upstream including expanding the current ditch in Lyman Park to enhance stormwater treatment
by establishing wider detention areas. Stormwater enters the ditch systems behind the gas station,
church, and the grocery store at multiple locations and thus small decentralized treatment
methods such as rain gardens or infiltration practices may be appropriate. Minimal, if any,
mowing should be performed in the swales so thicker vegetation increases hydraulic resistance
slowing flow rate and increasing retention times.
Figure 19: Potential Stormwater Treatment Options in Hinesburg Village Lower M16

The middle section of M16 includes runoff from the remaining section of Hinesburg village,
from Charlotte Road upstream past Hinesburg Community School. This subwatershed was
targeted for treatment due to high percentage of impervious surface, water quality problems
downstream, and local erosion. A multi-celled, terraced detention system is recommended where
the piped system meets the ditch at the corner of Silver Street (Figure 20). Multiple detention
cells would allow for increased retention times on the sloping corner of land. Water currently
rushes out of the pipe and down the existing steep ditch to the LaPlatte River.
Ditches along Charlotte Road collect water from a section of Route 116 with catch basins and
stormwater pipes. The ditch that this system discharges to is a grass swale along the road that
could be improved into a higher functioning linear rain garden system. Soils located in the area
indicate that infiltration could be possible in this location.
Another series of catch basins along the southwest part of the village collects runoff along Route
116 in front of the Hinesburg Elementary school and discharges near the corner of Silver Street
and Route 116. Erosion is taking place at this outfall indicating high stormwater flows. Runoff
eventually flows through the ditches along Silver Street. The terraced rain garden recommended
in this area will thus need to be size for the volume of runoff coming from this and the
previously mentioned pipe systems.
Hinesburg Community School has two discharge points behind the school. Multiple
opportunities exist for stormwater treatment such as rain gardens or constructed wetlands at the
school site (Figure 20). These projects could benefit local stream health and present a hands-on
educational opportunity for the students at the Hinesburg Community School to learn about
stormwater. The targeted outfall collects runoff from compacted areas of the lawn and discharges
behind the play area. Roof runoff should be diverted to the recommended treatment area. Other
smaller stormwater projects could be implemented around the school such as inclusion of rain
water collection barrels at the roof downspouts and building of small rain gardens in the median
strip in front of the school that are now drained by catch basins. Disconnection of impervious
surfaces or install of infiltration methods are recommended for the parking areas and the roof
that are now discharging to the LaPlatte River near the Silver Street Bridge without treatment.
Installation of stormwater treatments may be pursued as part of the reconstruction of the Silver
Street Bridge, scheduled for 2011-2012.

Figure 20: Potential Stormwater Treatment Options in Hinesburg Village Middle M16
Patrick Brook M15S02, Hinesburg Village
Patrick Brook (M15.S02.1) was identified as a priority watershed for stormwater treatment based
on the ranking analysis and specifically percent impervious surface. Between the local gas
station and Patrick Brook is a piece of open space that could serve as a location for a stormwater
detention pond (Figure 21). A constructed wetland or traditional pond could be built and directly
draining runoff from the area could be diverted to the pond via swales or curbing along the back
of the parking areas.

Figure 21: Potential Stormwater Treatment Option in Hinesburg Village Patrick Brook
Patrick Canal T4, Hinesburg
Several of the Patrick Canal subwatersheds have been identified as having degraded geomorphic
condition and are high priority for stormwater mitigation. Much of the development in the lower
reach (T4.01) is new and has adequate stormwater treatment. The close proximity of the canal to
Mechanicsville Road limits opportunity for detention along this degraded reach (T4.02). The
upper watersheds have some in-line detention in the form of ponds and dams. Residential
development in the upper reaches is dispersed and does not have stormwater treatment. One
potential treatment location was identified next to Mechanicsville Road at the base of the
cemetery (Figure 22). A detention area at this location could serve as channel overflow during
storm events and detain runoff from the cemetery hillside. The location of this detention area is
upstream of T4.02 that has poor geomorphic condition and T4.01 which has significant
impervious surface and is therefore vulnerable to stormwater runoff. This site was visited in the
field and appears to be a good location for a constructed wetland.

Figure 22: Potential Stormwater Treatment Option in Hinesburg Patrick Canal
8.2 Summary of Recommended Projects
The recommended stormwater treatment projects presented here have been tabulated along with
relevant stormwater information to aid in project prioritization and further project development
(Table 7 and Table 8). Drainage area and amount of impervious area draining to each outlet or
project location was identified. An approximate runoff volume was calculated based on the
subwatershed runoff depth and the drainage area to the outfall.

Table 7: Summary of Suggested Projects in Shelburne
Approximate Approximate
Subwatershed Subwatershed
Stream Drainage Impervious
Project Location Recommendations Property Owner Parcel ID Runoff Runoff Depth
Reach ID Area to Area to Outlet
Ranking (inches)
Outlet (acres) (acres)
Mt. Philo Road north of Wes M04,
Detention in Field Town of Shelburne 34-52-03.000 0.958 40.03 8.02 1.17
Road Village
Green Hills Drive, Timber Lane,
Rainwater Disconnection M04,
Meadow Lane Area Multiple N/A 0.958 126.96 24.85 1.17
/ LID Approaches Village
Neighborhood
Peter & Susan Plumb, Town 36-51-21.000,
Mt. Philo Road Drainage,
of Shelburne, Frederick -72.000, - M06,
Outfall between John St. and Install Detention 0.435 43.26 8.52 0.47
Schmidt & Ann Revtrusts, 65.000, - Village
Littlefield Drive
Mark & Judy Willis 66.000
M06,
John Street Install Infiltration Inger Dybfest 36-51-18.000 0.435 11.29 1.61 0.47
Village
Divert Pipe Flow to
Harbor Road Collection System, T1.03,
Detention near Althetic McCabe's Circle Community 30-50-33.200 0.847 107.49 25.14 0.93
near Althetic Drive Northern
Drive
Divert Pipe Flow to
Harbor Road Collection System, T1.03,
Detention behind Town Town of Shelburne 30-50-03.000 0.847 107.49 25.14 0.93
Detention behind Town Garage Northern
Garage
School Street and Elementary Install Detention behind T1.03,
Town of Shelburne 30-50-20.000 0.493 17.42 1.81 0.72
School Tennis Courts Southern
Heritage Lane, Fletcher Lane,
Rainwater Disconnection T1.03,
Davis Lane, Stoeks Lane, Tracy Multiple N/A 0.493 201.81 16.09 0.72
/ LID Approaches Southern
Lane Area Neighborhood
Investigate and Improve 10-02-07.000,
Teddy Bear Factory Teddy Bear Factory T1.05 0.315 62.57 6.52 0.50
Treatment -09.000
Notes: Teddy Bear Factory Areas assume all impervious area on site could be collected.
2009-2010 LaPlatte River Watershed Stormwater Infrastructure Study 53

Table 8: Summary of Suggested Projects in Hinesburg
Approximate Approximate
Subwatershed Subwatershed
Stream Drainage Impervious
Project Location Recommendations Property Owner Parcel ID Runoff Runoff Depth
Reach ID Area to Area to Outlet
Ranking (inches)
Outlet (acres) (acres)
Retrofit Existing Pre-
M16,
Saputo Factory Site treatment Pond / Saputo Cheese USA Inc 20-50-66.000 0.628 86.63 13.36 0.72
Northern
Infiltration
Lyman Meadows Northern Andrew Burton/ Town of 20-50- M16,
Swale Improvement 0.628 2.77 0.85 0.72
Section Hinesburg 81.000/ 20-50- Northern
Hart & Mead Inc / Andrew 20-50- M16,
Gas Station/Lyman Meadows Swale Improvement 0.628 19.78 5.06 0.72
Burton 37.000/ 20-50- Northern
Swale Improvement,
Public ROW / Green Street Road ROW / M16,
Charlotte Road Bioretention, or 0.408 7.43 2.63 0.62
LLC. 20-50-43.000 Middle
Infiltration
Silver Street and Route 116 M16,
Detention Town of Hinesburg 08-01-09.000 0.408 6.47 2.53 0.62
Corner Middle
Hinesburg Community School M16,
Bioretention Town of Hinesburg 08-01-32.000 0.408 3.41 0.42 0.62
Play Area Middle
Hinesburg Community School, Bioretention or M16,
Town of Hinesburg 08-01-32.000 0.408 5.2 2.33 0.62
Parking Area Infiltration Middle
Route 116 Crossing over Patrick
Detention on South side Jolley Associates 16-20-68.000 M15S02.1 0.515 16.65 4.19 0.67
Brook
T4.03 &
Hinesburg Cemetery, Patrick Patrick Brook Storwater
Town of Hinesburg 17-22-60.00 US 0.405 4036.67 166.68 0.62
Brook Overflow
Reaches
Notes: Hinesburg Cemetery site, includes area from upstream subwatersheds that contribute flow to Patrick Brook at that point.
2009-2010 LaPlatte River Watershed Stormwater Infrastructure Study 54

8.3 General Stormwater Recommendations
This study has demonstrated that stormwater runoff is an issue within the LaPlatte River
watershed. Many of the specific areas experiencing the most problems are focused in and around
the village centers of Shelburne and Hinesburg. Older stormwater conveyance systems without
any treatment are now handling increased volumes of runoff as properties in village centers
converted land use to impervious cover and the already limited infiltration capacity was reduced.
Data suggest that receiving waters are showing signs of impairment from stormwater discharge.
The areas that have been identified for mitigation projects add treatment to the existing system
and seek to expand capacity at the village center where growth is likely to take place since
municipal infrastructure (sidewalks, water and sewer, schools) and services already exist.
Although rural areas do not have the same permitted development density or amount of
impervious cover, stormwater impacts do exist from field and road ditch runoff that influences
downstream channels. These areas will have different approaches to stormwater mitigation as
there are not obvious collection systems to target projects.
Recommended strategies for improving water quality through stormwater treatment.
• Begin implementation of the projects identified during this study to eliminate discharge
of untreated stormwater to receiving waters. Community and school hands-on
demonstration projects are recommended to gain public support for minimizing
stormwater impacts from village centers.
• Require all properties submitting an application for a building permit to demonstrate

stormwater mitigation using Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. The ultimate
goal is mimicking pre-development hydrology by reducing runoff volume for future
development (Smith 2010). This strategy would specifically target small developments
that are under the threshold for obtaining a state stormwater permit, but have a
cumulative impact by joining the existing stormwater systems with such little treatment
facilities. Innovative design approaches would be required to size and construct best
management practices to reduce runoff (e.g., Hirschman and Collins 2008).
• Fund and implement a low impact development (LID) outreach program to promote and
support single lot-scale stormwater reduction and re-use methods such as rain barrels,
cisterns, and rain gardens. This would include adoption and distribution of an LID
guidance manual such as that used by the South Burlington Stormwater Utility (Utility
2009) or VTDEC’s The Small Sites Guide for Stormwater Management (VTDEC 2009).
An important message is that LID techniques reduce stormwater runoff (Bedan and

Clausen 2009), improves the quality of receiving waters, is often aesthetically pleasing in
village centers, and is cost-effective design approach (USEPA 2007).
• Building on the findings presented here, use stormwater treatment potential to guide
future development and plans for growth in the village centers. The potential exists for
infiltration-based stormwater mitigation in select locations in most of the priority
watersheds. These possible treatment sites should be investigated further for verification
of infiltration capacity based on soil mapping, proximity to potential development sites,
and identification of parcel information.
• Revise planning and zoning ordinances to include specific strategies for stormwater
improvement. Create a green infrastructure overlay district to reserve prime areas for
infiltration and groundwater recharge based on soils and surficial geology. This type of
overlay would allow for natural infiltration as well as locations for sighting engineered
stormwater management areas.
There are many ways to reduce and re-use stormwater. A summary of popular approaches that
could be incorporated into standard practices, master plans, or municipal code follow.
• Limit the amount of impervious surface and preserve open space

o Cluster development for to share drives and roads
o Minimizing pavement widths
o Reduce setbacks from property lines to limit driveway lengths
o Reduce necessary property frontages to reduce main road length per property
o Encourage minimal disturbance practices during construction to preserve natural
vegetation, heterogeneous land surface, and soil permeability
o Use permeable pavement or pavers where possible
o Use green roof tops
o Increase infiltration capacity of lawns, sports fields and parks by mowing high
and over seeding bare spots.
• Disconnect impervious surfaces from collection systems and receiving waters

o Install rain barrels or cisterns for rainwater collection at roof downspouts for
irrigation.
o Install rain gardens to collect runoff from driveways and medians. Technical
guidance for design and building is provided by the Vermont Rain Garden
Manual created by the Winooski Natural Resource Conservation District (District
2009). Assistance is also available through UVM extension services.
o Install infiltration systems such as infiltration trenches, basins, or underground
galleys where soils are permeable.

o Eliminate use of curbing where possible to promote overland flow of runoff from
impervious surfaces.
• Preserve river corridor natural stormwater functions

o Restrict new development from designated floodplain areas. These areas are
critical for water storage during flood events and sediment and nutrient removal.
o Maintain and expand vegetated buffers to filter stormwater runoff.
• Improve stormwater treatment function of roadside ditches

o Encourage natural vegetation for reduction of water velocity, improved settling of
solids, and reduction of erosion.
o Include small depressions to promote settling of solids and collection of gravel in
road runoff.
o Install sediment forebays and check dams where appropriate along existing
ditches to increase water storage, promote infiltration, and allowing settling of
solids.
o Stone lined ditches raise water temperatures due to sun exposure and ultimately
raise temperatures in streams that is harmful to many aquatic species.
• Improve stormwater runoff from agricultural areas

o Encourage landowners to take advantage of USDA fencing and buffer programs
to protect riparian areas.
o Promote soil protection using cover crops and other methods.
o Reduce pollutant load from fields.
Future considerations for the Towns.
• There is value in planning for stormwater mitigation on a watershed and town-wide basis
instead of a site by site level as required by current state regulations. How can this more
efficient level of planning be incorporated into policy?
• The benefits of being proactive in mitigating effects of stormwater are numerous and
more economical in the long run. Could implementation of a stormwater management
plan avoid state and federal mandated regulation?
• Minimizing ecological impacts in the watershed should be a priority for towns. Our
health and that of the ecosystem depend on it.
• Should a green infrastructure overlay be created to conserve infiltration areas and

describe their priority for stormwater mitigation and groundwater aquifer recharge?

• Due to the rural nature of the towns, development is often dispersed and small scale.
Should new development of this type be required to meet a town stormwater treatment
standard? How easily can the town implement low-impact design approaches?
• Are the costs and benefits for stormwater discharge appropriately shared between rural
and urban areas?
• Would the town foster partnership with LaPlatte Watershed Partnership to facilitate
outreach to property owners to provide education and technical advice on improved
stormwater management?
• Many municipalities are moving towards tougher development standards where rather
than no increase in peak flow rate no increase in stormwater runoff volume leaving the
site is allowed. Is this standard a fair burden on future development?
• Roadside ditches contribute untreated stormwater directly to streams in the majority of

the watershed. Is there a way to target specific areas for improvement during scheduled
ditch maintenance? Will the town agree to change ditch practices to improve stormwater
treatment and formalize these approaches in a policy?
8.4 Growth Center Considerations
The Town of Shelburne has taken steps to implement stormwater improvement strategies as part
of MS4 permit requirements. A floodplain overlay has been incorporated into municipal zoning
that includes stream buffers and stormwater overlay districts (Figure 23). Details and standards
for stormwater treatment have been included in the Town Public Works Specifications. The
Town has passed a Stormwater Ordinance. All of these steps have worked towards improved
stormwater treatment and protection of the river corridors.
The Town of Shelburne’s stormwater overlay district includes the majority of the developed area
in and around the village center that has been discussed as high risk in this study. It requires that
any new or redevelopment project exceeding 10,000 square feet (approximately ¼ acre) may be
subject to individual permit requirements from the DEC Water Quality Division. The focus on
stormwater has been on developed areas with designated stormwater impaired rivers. This report
illustrates the need for prevention of future impacts and provides suggestions for refinement of
the designated stormwater overlay district to preserve important infiltration areas or protect open
space.

The Hinesburg Zoning districts include a Village Growth Area (Figure 24). This Growth Area
designates a significant amount of currently undeveloped land to be part of future development.
These areas are within many subwatersheds that were identified to be stormwater hot spots
including LaPlatte River (M16) and Patrick Brook and Canal (M15.S02, T4.01, T4.02). The
Patrick Brook and Canal reaches have already been identified as contributing to degraded
conditions in the LaPlatte River reach (M15). Stream buffers have been included as part of the
designated Growth Area. These buffers begin to set priority for stream functions and decrease
pollutants in runoff, but may benefit from being extended to include more of the adjacent areas
shown to have high infiltration capacity to support current and future stormwater treatment.
It is recommended that the Hinesburg Village Growth area be refined based on a village-wide
stormwater management plan. This plan would strategize mitigation of current stormwater
problems and set guidance for future development. Mitigation of stormwater runoff from public
infrastructure would be addressed in the plan. A few areas with soils conducive to infiltration
should be designated for infiltration type stormwater treatment and be incorporated in site
planning.
Charlotte remains mostly rural within the LaPlatte River watershed. Town zoning designated
most of the area as rural (Figure 25). Conservation areas show stream buffers and a few large
areas adjacent to streams. East Charlotte village, including a small section of Village
Commercial zoning is included in the watershed. This area of concentrated development is
located at the headwaters of a few tributaries that appear to have adequate open space to provide
stormwater treatment before discharge to a receiving water.

EX
CR EC
ED
GE EXE
D
L R ID O U
CR OVE
NT HIL W EXECUTIVECDR
NR
U T IV TI
S ID
A N
PHE AS MA RD E DR V
E
OW
R IN
SC
D
RT H
ER
ED
SW R
Subwatershed Boundary Village Center Mixed Use
IN E R
Y
WA
NO
Shelburne Bay
R
Stormwater Overlay Shelburne Falls Mixed Use
D
MA R
T
LOGAN
DR
EC
Floodplain Overlay Mixed use DR
IN
MOR SE
BAYFIE LD DR
PH
RAV
E
CT
AS
BAYRural Commerce & Industry
N
M01 VIEW L
DR
POINT V IE
AN
LN POT
AF T
E RD
T
SON
LE E
R PL
REMAP Residential
LE
RD Commerce & Industry South
HI
WHD C E DAVE N ER CIR
T
LL
R ACM
LL
A OE
R
C
YA
M
URN
IT H A R
CO LL
PIE
E REVillage
C E L NResidential Conservation
RD
LN
C
NT
W DR
R DA
HT
E WI RL
B
AK N
SHE L
Museum DR Water
MUNROE DR
HA
D NN E ADOW
YR I
VE
BA SP LONGM
N
ND DR
RIC HM O
DR
Y WY
M02 DEE R
ER
D
T1.01
IN AL
RU
AT DR EW LN NQD
THRUUARSH WY
NG
EDW
IL
HARBO
W
Y
CAGR
T1.02
HAW
M
R ID
u nr
BO U
R RD
RT
LE Y RWE B
STO NE
PA oe
N
FA
FOX R U
LDE
HOES
OW
N RD
WY
R
WR LN
Br
NE
KN
D ST E
IG H
R
ST
O
GAT E L
T RGEA LN
oo
ST k
H IL L
BO UR
ro o
UN
EA
D LD
FIE B
k
D
roe
DR
DR
R
n
Mu
N
N
LN
EL
D
TER R
R DWE B S Mu n NASHVIL LE RD
E DR
ro e B r o o k
G
S TE R ROO
D DR
TA
WE B BR ENTW
LN
R Y D BIS H
S
E
M03
DS
LOW
G
RN
AD
ACORN
P EAK
OP RD
L
AT
L
KE
BA
ST
OL
E
GARDENSI
RD
E
DE LN
RM
L aP
RV
A
FA
CH ES
lat t
TURTLE LN
LN
HA
QUA T1.03 e
RD
KE R
SM I
T
DEP
OT R iv
MAEC K FARM
H PT D
OAR L E TIC D R
RD R
er
DD
MC C
O O
EW
M04
N
RN
e River
DL
ABE
DR
LB
VA E LN
BA RN VIEW TH E
RD SH
IL R D
DR
VISTA
RA L EA
DG E
C IR
CR EE KS IDE DR
R RI
COTETAG
DUC K POND RD A
SHEL BURN CE D
LaP la tt
V E SHOP PING
DAVIS A PK
AG
T ST
FALL S
LL
OL S
CH U
O
FLE TCHER LN
VI
R
R
CH S
K
T
ES
2M
MD
EU
TR
LN
SC H
US E USM
RD
HERITAGE LN A
FAR
CY
T1.04
MU
LN
SPEA R ST
SON R
ES
NE
RNE M
CR
UR
HA
LB
P
THOM
E
RD
H IG
R
SH
SHE L B
RE
TER
U
WE S R
D
RD ST
S ID E
IR IS H HILL PA
ME ADOW LN
WIL DW
LAP M05 S
iver
L AT T
TIM B E
WIL DW OOD CT
E C IR
HILL
RD
RM
LaP la tte R
K FA ERR N
BL AC K W IL
M06 ML
OOD D
W IC T1.05 AL L T AD
T KIMB L IU
R LNMAP L EW
BO S RD IL
ive r
T T TR
D IE
S E
MA R
te R
D R
RD
BA CO N
R
LN
ST HILLS DR
JOHN ST
US
LaP la t
LN
LOW LN
R RD
EB
CHE CY N
ERT
T
MO U N
O
PL
FL E RD O SUR LITT LEF IELD DR

CO L RIC K
OD D
DR TI LNN L N RIVERVALE RD
EE
LIM E E
OCK
DR
LOW E R
MIDDLE TER RACEE DR
GREEN
TO
RD NG
T PH IL
LAKE
R
VI
AC
CO
UPPE R TE RR
TE R R AC
THO
O RD
WIL D GIN MA
er
SR
GER LN D
iv
LaP l a l a tte R
E DR
M07 EUS TAC E LN

L aP
t te
AIR PAR
M06S2.01 SOUTHVIEW D
Ri
DR
R
NE
B IN D
L a Pla tt e
ve
TO
DS
r
RE
P LE DR
K RD
E RO
GE RD
RIDG EF IE
S R ID
RD
WAK
P
EL
WAKE
Ri v
CR AB A
POP L AZ
PEEPER POND LN
A R DR
D F HD
ARCMH R
NA L
M08
er
DR MC D O T
WI GOBBLE R LN
LD RD
RN
BE
TH O
R
Mc C
A
HAW
OB IN
ab
CH
RD BO ST
LN
es
Br
Y
o
N HW
ok
W ICK
SOA
R IN G
AL L E
HAW
K LN
RD
µ
N
ET HA
Shelburne Village 0 500 1,000 2,000

Zoning Districts Feet

Rural Residential 1
(north of growth center)
Commercial
Village NE
Residential 1
Village NW
Village Commercial
Rural Residential 1
(east of growth center)
Industrial 4 Industrial 3
Village
Agricultural
(west of growth center)
W E 1:10800 1 inch = 900 feet

500 0 500 1000 Feet
S
Residential 2
Hinesburg Village Growth Area
Zoning Districts
Adopted by Selectboard May 4, 2009 Agricultural
Effective May 25, 2009 (south of growth center)
map date 5/14/2009
by Hinesburg Planning/Zoning Office
M
F
HEATHER
LN
AP
FR OG
SU
CY N
E DR
LOW E R
GREEN HILLS
RR AC E DR
K RD O SUR TI LNLEL N DR
RM RD
M
DE RIC D RIVERVALE RD D
RT
E DR ON W F LE R
RIM
M09S3.02
M
LAKEL T O O IE L MB SHE L B
KE
TER RAC
NG
ER
TU
S
URNE
RD I F
D HAY HINE S
LE D
E ND
V
FI
OC
CO THOMAS RD BURG
SHELBURNE
K
ICK FA
TE R R AC
TT
SI
LN
IC
EL
R D R
WIL DLIG r
M
ive
W INGER LN
D
MIDDLETE
ST
M
te R
RK RD RD
RD
ON
BO AIR PA EUS TAC E LN
L a P l at
ED
M07
WAKE ROBIN DR
UPPE R
WE
BO ST W
SD
FF RA
E DR
R SOUT HVIE
ED M06S2.01 W DRBB
R
N
P LE DR
S TO I
RIDGEFIELD RD T
RE D RD
GE RD D D
S R ID WEE D R
LN
WAKE
POPNL D
R LR
ZE
ND
P
AR D MCDONALD FARM HA RD
OR M08
CR AB A
R CH
PO
GOBBLE
APP
T R LN
TH I
RD
R
W
LaPlatte Ri ver WIDOW IRISH RD
Mc
R
W
OB IN
PE
HA
SH
LE R
LN
URNE
RD
Ca
E
IL L M
PE
M09S3.01 AR
LB
H
ID G
TF
be
OW
LN
UR
SO
CR O
B
sB
NE
PR
SHE L
E RD
T2.01 M09 TA
RI
M10
FA
r oo
NG
L
NAT UR ES WY N RD
PL O
LS
HA
k
IL
LIM E K
D DR T1.06
RD
W
CR OS SWIN
N PA ST UR E LN
U
BO UTIN
K
F FE
M cC a
LN
SAN
FAR
C T UA
er
RY L
be s
R D TH
N
M
OW
Ri v
DOR SE
T2.02 E AD
LN
IN G
M F
F
B ro o k
RI
e
ER F
M06S2.02 IS P
V
la tt
WH
42
ER
T ST
ONEIL RD
o l l o w B ro
MOUNT PHILO RD
VI
T1.07
LaP
ok T ER RD M12S5.01
EW
CA RP E N
ET HAN
H
u
DR
R DRD
CLNATRK
d
MC G UIR E PE
M
T2.03 M11
A
HINESBURG
LLEN H
T1.08
LN M12
LEAVENS WORTH RD
DR IFT
SNOW M11S4.01
WY
N
O
RT
H
McCab es
O
LD
E
PA NIGHT RUN RD
CA
TT
CHURCHN RHILL RD
ON
RR
IA
W
GE RD
L RD
WE S TG
SP EA R
OO ON HIL
G
MU T T
E
D
DS
Broo k
T2.04
MUT TO
RD
FOX L
ON P
SUT T
AR R IA
ER
RUN
T2S1.01
k
AT E R D
ST
RD
V
oo
SH
k
TA
WOODLAND WY
Br oo
Br
Bingh am Broo k
VAL LE Y
E
MU R P H
N HILL
llo
EH
OL DE C
w
Ho URG RD
AN CH AR
HINES B LOT T
CHARLOTTE
E RD
ab es
GR
D
Y RD
VIE W D
d
LR
WS
R
EE
Mu
E YS PL H IL
SOUT H
N
N
McC
KSO
ME
E NNERLYS
MUSE U
JA C
R
TBEV
M RD
RE
HO
B
REL AC
D
T1.09
ME
BEAN RD
TA
D K
TR D O
DE DR
I
ST
R NINGSI
LL
UC G
MO K LN
EA
EET LN
N
RD BITT ER SW LN
D
FE R RY
DR
T2S1.02
RO OT RD
RD
GU
T2.07
TT
IN E
I
RR
AR
BU
T2.06
T2.05
r oo k
BO
W NL
N T2S2.01
Bin gh
rp B
E RD
PR INDL
RD
Tho
N
am B
S WY RE
CO L W IL LIAM GA
AIN R
D T2S2.02
D
OUNT R
roo k
PE AS
EM ND Commercial/Light Industrial
RD
O
ST
EDP
IRR
ON
GE
D GFE BINGHAM BROOK

RD
RI
D
EW
KB Conservation
RI
OC
AL
Thorp Brook
ST
W WLEL
CANNON POINT RD
T2S2.03
LN
D
D
LUC Y
KR
MAGIC HILL RD
SN
W
OO
ROC East Charlotte Village

LE
ME A D O
P LIT
DW
S
Y
EA
B EE R D
Kimball Brook
S
HIG
DR
IL
RD
CO
LN
M ILE RD
WAT ER
W
ASHE RD
R
Rural DR IN K
M
E
W SIDE
PP
M
ON
ek
Lew is Cre
W
Shoreland
Y
QUARTE R
Bingham Broo
DR
ONE MIL E RD
r e
C ek Le
w is
k
N TR L RD
T OW wi
ro o
Lewis Creek
GE
RROLL D
PPNET E
s C Seasonal
L D TOUW IL T2S1.03 Shoreland Home Management
INS E D
O
re
ll B
LOW E R M
Le
LF ek
HA
Lew
ba
Village Commercial
Kim
MOUNTA
OAK HILL RD
is
RD
RD
Cr eSeA
IN T R D D
PS ONS PO
OE
A
West Charlotte Village
DR
T HOM TO
PAL M
EAST
C
RO S
W
ER
SF
kM
N
ER L N
ILL
µ
LL I
Hinesburg Village
RD
DO
0 1,000 2,000 4,000

Zoning Districts Feet

8.5 Stormwater Utility Considerations
The information presented here is fundamental to stormwater utility planning and

implementation. Impervious cover layers and infrastructure mapping could be used to guide
locating where the utility is applicable and setting rates. The project list provides a first take on a
wide array of projects that utility fees could be applied to for improved local stormwater
management.
Most residents in the LaPlatte River watershed currently do not pay the cost of generating
increased stormwater runoff that is impacting the river and the cost of servicing existing
infrastructure. Results of this study indicate that village centers have increased infrastructure
needs, yet rural areas also have stormwater management project needs. A regular funding source
is needed to update existing stormwater systems with necessary treatment facilities and begin
proactive planning for treating runoff from all future development regardless of size.
A regional stormwater approach seems to make sense for the LaPlatte River watershed given the
small size of village centers and generally small population. A watershed-based administration
of a utility would create efficiencies and reduce operating costs.
9.0 References
Bedan, E. S. and J. C. Clausen (2009). "Stormwater Runoff Quality and Quantity From
Traditional and Low Impact Development Watersheds(1)." Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 45(4): 998-1008.
Brabec, E., S. Schulte, et al. (2002). "Impervious surfaces and water quality: A review of current
literature and its implications for watershed planning." Journal of Planning Literature
16(4): 499-514.
CWP (2003). "Is impervious cover still important? Impacts of Urbanization on Downstream
Receiving Waters." Runoff Rundown, Center for Watershed Protection 9: 1-15.
District, W. N. R. C. (2009). "The Vermont Rain Garden Manual "Gardening to Absorb the
Storm"." Retrieved March 30, 2010, 2010, from
http://vacd.org/winooski/VtRainGardenManual.pdf.
Fitzgerald, E. P. (2007). LINKING URBANIZATION TO STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY,
AND BIOTIC INTEGRITY IN THE LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN, VERMONT
(Masters Thesis). Graduate College. Burlington, VT, University of Vermont. Master of
Science.
Hirschman, D. and K. Collins (2008). The Runoff Reduction Method. Ellicott City, MD, Center
for Watershed Protection, Inc. 8: 1-26.
Lane, E. W. (1955). The importance of fluvial morphology in hydraulic engineering. American
Society of Civil Engineering, Journal of the Hydraulics Division.
LWP (2006). LaPlatte River Phase 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessment: Hinesburg Reaches.
Shelburne and Charlotte, VT, LaPlatte Watershed Partnership, with support from VT

DEC River Management Program, VT ANR Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Lewis
Creek Association.
LWP (2007). Phase 2 Stream Geomorphic Assessments, Lower LaPlatte River & McCabe's
Brook, Shelburne and Charlotte, Vermont. Shelburne and Charlotte, VT, LaPlatte
Watershed Partnership, with support from VT DEC River Management Program and
Lewis Creek Association.
LWP (2007). Stream Corridor Plan for the LaPlatte River and Tributaries, Town of Hinesburg,
Vermont. Hinesburg, VT, LaPlatte Watershed Partnership, with support from VT DEC
River Management Program and Lewis Creek Association.
LWP (2008). Shelburne Bay Tributaries - LaPlatte River (Background and Interpretation of
Results: 2004-2007).
LWP (2008). Stream Corridor Plan Reaches M6-M11, Towns of Charlotte and Shelburne,
Vermont. Hinesburg, VT, LaPlatte Watershed Partnership, with support from VT DEC
River Management Program and Lewis Creek Association.
Schiff, R. and G. Benoit (2007). "Effects of impervious cover at multiple spatial scales on coastal
watershed streams." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43(3): 712-
730.
SCS (1986). Technical Release 55: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (TR-55), The Soil
Conservation Service (forerunner of NRCS) Hydrology Branch in cooperation with the
Agricultural Research Service, Hydrology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Smith, T. (2010). "Runoff volume reduction: A perspective from springfield and greene coutny,
missouri." Water Resources IMPACT 12(2): 13-16.
Strahler, A. N. (1952). "Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography." Bulletin
of the Geological Society of America 63: 1117-1142.
Thompson, E. H. and E. R. Sorenson (2005). Wetland, woodland, and wildland: A guide to the
natural communities of Vermont. Lebanon, NH, University Press of New England.
USEPA (2007). Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies
and Practises, EPA 841-F-07-006. U. S. E. P. Agency. Washington, DC, United States
Environmental Protection Agency: 37.
Utility, S. B. S. (2009). Low Impact Development Guidance Manual. South Burlington,
Vermont, Sout Burlington Stormwater Utility.
VTANR (2009). Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocol Handbooks: Remote
Sensing and Field Surveys Techniques for Conducting Watershed and Reach Level
Assessments (http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/htm/rv_geoassesspro.htm).
Waterbury, VT, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Water Quality, River Management Program.
VTDEC (2002). The Vermont Stormwater Management Manual. VTANR. Waterbury, VT: 119.
VTDEC (2008). STATE OF VERMONT 303(d) LIST OF WATERS: PART A - IMPAIRED
SURFACE WATERS IN NEED OF TMDL. Waterbury, VT, Vermont Agency of
Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, Water Quality Division.
VTDEC (2008). Total Maximum Daily Load to Address Biological Impairment in Munroe
Brook (VT05-11) Chittenden County, Vermont. Approved by USEPA: August 21, 2008.
V. D. o. E. Conservation. Waterbury, Vermont.
VTDEC (2009). The Small Sites Guide for Stormwater Management. VTANR. Waterbury, VT:
48.

Appendix A – Town Stormwater Infrastructure Maps
Attached as electronic file (PDF).

R
U") )
"
)
" "
)
)"
" ) )"
")
""
))
)
"
""
)
MART
)
LN
)
"
""
)) "
)
CA
)
"
OLDE ORCHARD LN 2 )
"
D
)!
)"
" )
" )
"
µ
TK
!
)
)
" "
)
AR
!!
!"
)!"
) 22)
" "
IN
IN DA
)
" )
"
DR
CH
G
PAL MER CT JUNIPE R RD
)"
" "
)
)"
IR
)
"
OR
)
LE R D
) "
" ))"
RC
)
" )"
) )
"
HUNTER S WY "
"
) "
WA D
)
"
DE
) ))"
"")
R
)") "
TE
ER
OL
)
"
SOUTH BURLINGTON
""
)
WOODBINE RD
)
T
HU"
)L"
"
)
WA
DR )L"
)C R E ST R
LAKE VIEW
AR
D
"
)
LN
)
" "
)
AR
)
")
"
RD
E
)
"
CL
E
BR OO K
CL
IL L
)
"
HINE
2
TH
"!
)
"
T LN
SHRS "
""
)) )!
TAMARACK RD
) ) )
" "
AN
Y
GROVE LN
S BU
)
"
OR
""
)) )
" )"
") ""
)) ) )
" "
T DR
CRES
CT
)"
")
AS
FA
)"
"
RG R
)"
)
SE
E
)
"
PH
R EE
E ROW D
PINE HURS
HULL
HEDG" CH
N CT
)
"
T
R ") ") )"
"
D
)"
U
D
)
ET C
)"
)
HR
"
)
)
" "
)
)
"
SHER IDA
CH AM )") ""
)
C
)
S
)
"
P LA"
ORY LN
"
)
"
BIR
SUN
)IN DR
PHEASANT HILL LN
"
)
)
"
""
)
PIN
) "
)
BA RS TOW
)"
" ) R RD
ED
EH
CH EE SEFACT
)
" )
" )"
)
DR
""
) "
S ID
)
" )")
) "
))" VIE W
WE S T
UR
)"
") "
TH
!R
)
"
O
ST
2
N
!
TURKEY RDG
)
" "
)
)")"
) )
"
LN
o ok
"
U
M u n ro e B r R WILLISTON
""
))
)"
" ) )
"
E CR O 2 ")EXEC
"!
) R
U "
)
L R IDG R
!
WN U
NT HIL RD UR ") ")UTIVE )
"
A
PHE AS
) "
" )
0 0.25 0.5 1
D
Shelburne Bay 2 RR
! ! "
)
) !U
E
"
2
!
COV
Miles
)"
"
MA )"
" )
R IN
)
ER
SW
2
!!
FARM DR
SUTTON
ERS
Y
)
" )
"
EDWA
R IN
"
)
DR
)"
" )
GOVERNO
MA
R
D DR
OD
""
))
LOGA
WO
Mun roe Broo
T
)"
")
E
EC
"
)
)"
"
RO S
RS LN
)
IN
""
)
DORSET
CT
" )
) )"
" )
RAV
)
"
E DR
MO R S
""
))
)"
"
)
"
)
BAYFIE LD DR
ST
)"
")
k
ST. GEORGE
W LN ROUTE 116 TH 7
M01 BAYVIE "
)"
" )
ER CIR
) "")
CO LL AM
) )
"
)
"
POT T
ER P
)
"
MAP LE LEAF LN
"
)
POINT VIEW DR
L
)
"
)
"
)
"
RE D WINT E
R HAVE ) é
C
CED N" CT
"
YAC
AR ) RD A M ER
CO LL
"
LN
)
"
WH )
"
HT
IT E
SP IN
DR
CE
"" DA
)
HAV
)
_
^ )
"
RL
)"
"
SON
_
^ )
" ""
) )
NAK
)
N
)"
") ""
) )
3659-9010
EN
BUTTE RNUT LN
PIE R
))
""
)
" ! 2
ER L
)
" ! " ))"
" )
DR
MUNROE DR
))
" !
!
)
" 2
*
# )
"
OW D R
La
D
" )
" "
) U
! GM E AD " 2
!
)
" "
)
2
YR
)
" "!
N
!
)
"
LON
)
" ) !
BA t te
)
"
)
" )
" )"
)
!
)
" 2
! )
"
Pl
)
"
)
" )
" )
"
)
"! 2
!
a
)
"
2
!
) "
" ) "
)"
)"
")
""
)) 2
!
)
"
)
"!
)
" )"
") 2!
"
)
2
!!
! )
"
)
2 OND DR "
!
Ri
!
DEE R
)
"
) "
" ) "
"
) )"
) " 2
!
! !"
)
RIC HM )
)
"
ve
)
" )
" )
"
"
) )
)
" RU )
"
2
)"
!
") )
"
!
)
" 2
!
M02
r
)
")"
" ) !
T1.01
Legend
L WY
RUN
1-1550
)
"
)
" )
"
)
" ""
))
RD
La P )
" )
" 2
!
l at t
!
TE DR EW LN
*
# )
" )
"
e
IN A
)
"
DR
)"
)
THR"
GA
"
U"
)S H
)W
))
"
Y
)
N
""
)) "
)
" "
)
)
" "
)
)
" )
"
WAYRD
)"
"
"Q
) " "
! 2
o
) !
Br
UA
R iv
)
ok
)"
" )
"
)
"
)
" )
I L
U
EC
)
"
W R
HARBO
) "
"
2
! ") ")") Y
er
)
ANR Issued Stormwater Permits

!
e
ID G
UR *
#
n ro
Mun roe B
""
))" )"
"
) ) ! 2
!
B roo k T1.02 ro ok
R
"
)
)
"
es
HAW
RT
)
"
Mu
R RD
)
"
b
"
)
Ca
R
PA
)
" "
)
Mu n
"")"
Mc
) )
""
)) " U R
LE Y R
))
) "
)
" ) "
ANR SGA Identified Stormwater Inputs

" " "
) ) U
)"
" )
2
! )"
")
F
STO NE
!
ro
)"
") )
"
"
)
D
eB
""
))
FOX R U
) "
)"
N
)
"
)
" )!
" ! 2 N RD
" )
OW
)
" )
"
LN
)
" )
"
MMI Stormwater Points

)
" )
" "
)
ro
)
"
GAT E L
ES
!2
)
"
)
"
)
" )
" )
" )!
"
)
HO U
KN
!
BO
)
"
)
"
EE K RD
"
R 2! "
)
ok
WY
)
"
WR
UN
U
I)
G" )E
N
2
!
!
LD
)" )H"
)
TR T O)
"
" )
"
S
"
N
D
)
"
E
LD "
) BOURGE
6
A LN
WEB ST ER
)
" )
"
ok
" )
" "
)
11
)
RH
)
"
FIE
BE AVER CR
N
)
"
FAR M
3554-9010 B ro
)
" ""
)) )
"
NL
n ro e Catchbasin
RO UTE
)
"
IL L
""
)) )"
") )
"
AR
*
#
DR
M
WIND RD G
é
C
MB
u
TE AD
" ""
))
N
LN
EL
R
é
C
"
FA
PH
M
La P
TAG
iv e Concrete Pad
DR
D
un
I
lat t e R TER R
LL
r
WE B S
)
" Cé
R D
BIS HOP
"
DS
NASHVIL LE RD
IP
oe
R
LN
OL
D
Br
U ER R D DR
BS T BR ENTW OO
o
E
RW 2 M
ok
!
3421-9010 E
ok
!
LOW
DR
un
M03 r o e Bro DR R Detention Pond
AKE
DY
N
Mc
""
))
*
# LA
L
Ca KE
)
"
_
^
ST
AP E
be
TURT L
E
)
"
sB
RV
GARD
ACORN LN
ENS ID
S
ro
Drop Inlet
HA
E LN
CH E
é
""
)) )
" C
"
E
)
"
LN
ok
SHELBURNE T1.03
RM RD
Dry Well
QUAKER SMITH PT RD ^!
_ C
"N
DEP F U
R R
U
U R
OT R
D _
^ 3203-9010
MAE CK FA
3744-9015
)
"
Shelburne Pond
)
"
) R
" )
"
*
# )
"
U
D
"
)
UR *
#
NE R
R
Grease Trap
)
"
RD
QUAR RY RD
)
"
E TIC D
3913-9010 R 2
!
)!
" )
"
S GAT E
)
"
BUR
RU
MC C
*
# "
)
)
" U
R
AT HL
""
))"
SHE L B
))
M04
SHE
) "
" ) "
ABE
URNE
)
"
)
" "
N
) "
Manhole
W OOD
DR
)
"
) "
" )
")" )
"
)"
)
DL
)
DR
"
)
L N 2
!
!
T
)
" ))"
"" )"
2 LL
er
) !
VISTA
)
"
OL S
C IR
!
I
)"
"
BA RN VIEW
OA
)"
)
TH
)
Ri v
)
" "
RD
N
)"
"
E
)"
" )
RS
DRE L
IL R
)
_
^ ) "
" ) )
"
O
)"
)" )
" "
)
2
!2
! !
! 3879-9010 DO
SC H
3919-9010
) " )
"
) "
"
La P la t te
EAG
))
4954-9010
)
ok
)"
"
RA
)"
") "
CREEKSIDE DR
Outfall
ALTT
DR _
^
)
"
)"
")"
*
# E
*
#
CVO
*
# )
o
DUCK "
) )
"
DG
Br
I
)
" )"
)
PO ND )
" "
) ! SH" RR
GE
)EL BURNE SHOP

)
"
RD
"
)
A
)"
") )
" )"
"
) ) " PING PK
2
F
es
D
A
_ ")
^ AV
"
)
" !
IS " CE
LL
""
))
AV )
"
R
ab
D ) )
"
VI
)
" )
"
Outlet Structure
)
"
Mc C
)
"
)
" )
" )
"
)
" ) "
"
)
"
)
)
" U
ST
O
)
"
FLETCHER LN
)
"
KE
"
)
)
"
FALL S
) CH
F
_
^ "
) "
) UR CH
S
ST
) )
" "
) "
_
^
LN
" )
" )
"
2
!
UM
)
"
""
) !
)
"
Spillway
RY LN
) )
" )
"
CO UNT
"
)
U U
!
RD
US E
2
!
)
"
R
3921-9010
)
"
!
T
3920-9010
)
"
) RAC
"
) )
"
^!
_
HILL
HERITAGE LN U
NE M
" ))
" ) )
" ) )
"
Y
)
" " "" "
2)
" )*
2 # 2
)
" 2
! "") )
R")") "
)
LN
)
" ! ""
)
2
_
^ !
!"
) !
"
! )
"
! !
*
# )
))" UR") )
" )
" )
US E UM
" )
" )
" LE DGE HILL
FALC ON
BUR
) " )
Stone Filter
""
)
T1.04
)
")
" ) "
)"
") ")")
)
"
L
RD
) "
" )
SHE
RNE M
)"
" )
S PA
)
" ""
))
MMI Stormwater Lines

2
ESS
""
)) !
!
)
" ""
))
DR
)")
2 )
"
S TU
) )
"
3139-9015
)"
)"
")
" !
! ""
ACC
)
" ))
U
""
)
RM ""
) "
) "
_
^ )
SHE L B
RD
RE
FA ""
C )
"N ) *
#
D
S C )
"
RE
"N
2
HILLSIDE TER R
! "
)
P SON
R
)"
")" "
)
PON
!
)
" )
) "
" ) "
"
AC
D
)
"
Other
) )
)
"
H _") ")!
^
"
)
IG
""
)) )
"
)"
")
La R
THOM
))" )
"
H 2 Pl a
" )
" ! ""
))
)"
" ""
))"
t
U )
NORT HE RN
) !
)
" "
) ")
)
)"
" "
)
!
)
! 2 te R _
^ )
"
)
"
"
)
)
"
iv e
" )"
" )"
IR I
)
2
! S R D
WE
"
)
S
! )
"
)"
") HH
Culvert
)
" ""
))" )"
")
IL L
)
" )
" )
3338-9010
2
! _
^ M05 RD
WI L
!"
)
r
"
)
RD
)
"
M RD
POND
)
"
MEADOW LN
C IR
""
))
) LAPL AT TE
DW
*
# "
)
HT S DR
MONARC H RD
)
" )"
")
)"
"
er
R
OOD
TIM B ER
)
"
ITT FA
CT
Overland
iv
)
"
)
" )"
)
LaP la tte R
WIL DW OOD
"
DR
ERR
)L T
"
)
DEAV
)
"
A)L
T1.05 KIMB " M06 "
LN
)" TR IL LIUM LN
AD
BO S
"
)"
") )
BL AC K W IL
r
)
" )")
D IE
)
" "
ve Stormline
T
) "
) )
) " ""
) )"
")
Ri
F
_
^
W IC
TT RD ) "
MA R S E
) "
LN
"
MAP LE
L a Pl a t te
)"
)
") )"
)"
)" )
KF
) ""
RD
)"
" )"
BA CO N DR
2
ICK !
)
"
BO ST W
!
2
BU SHEY DR
!
ARM
)
" )
"
)!
RD
"
HEATHER
3673-9010
LOW LN
"
) _
^
W OOD
Swale
JOHN ST
""
) )"
)
SH
) "
""
) )"
") ) 2
" !
)!"
" )
RD
GREEN HILLS DR
))
"
U
""
))
*
#
LN
FR OG
EB
R 5194-9015
L
ERT
DR
""
)
EP
U )
2
!
)!
LN
")
"
*
#
S EN
E
R D
OCK
C
ST
)"
") ""
)
ER
)
^Y
_ NOSURE ! 2
CH 2 ! F Subwatershed Boundary
LET 3528-9010TI LN"
! !
_
^
D
LF RD DR
ER IC K
# 3784-9010
) RIVERVALE RD
CO LIM 2!
)
"
SU
! 3785-9010
))
" )
"! )
"
)"
" * 2 RD M
M
M09S3.02
*
# 2
! !
)
" )"
") E
NGTON LN BL
)
"
ER
!
CO VI
3564-9010
*
# UM FI
YT EL
E DR
LOW E R
DR
RD ) 2
Towns
)
" ! HA D
LAKE
!
M
)"
"
*
# RD
IEL D DR
cC
MIDDLE TER RAC E
3372-9010 LIT TLEF"

)"
"")
AC
)"
") " ) )
"
ab
)
R ) "
" )"
"
)) ) )
" "
)
)
"
UPPE R TE RR
THOMAS RD
)
"
R
TE R R AC
" )
" *
#
es
"
)
) )
" ) "
" ) U ^
_
SH
Br o
Lakes and Ponds

R EL
U BU
ok
E DR
WIL D GIN RN
GER LN E
H
"
) IN
ES
)
"
La P la RD
Roads
B U
EUSTAC E LN RG D
EE
M06S2.01 M07 RD W
v er
tte
F
_
^ SIM MON
S DR
Ri v
Ri
L a Pl a t t
)
"
F
_UR
Railroad
^
e
AIR PAR
er
3561-9010 SOUTHVIEW DR
L a P la
)
" )
"
""
) "
) *
# ) )
" "

) )"
)
RA
"
K RD
) )
"
RIDG EF
tte Ri v e r
"
BB
)
" ""
)) )
" )
"
REDSTONE DR
I
TR
R
LE D
D
IE
LD R D
AP P
D D
ER WE E D R
ID G McCabe s
""
))
SR
B
)
"
CR A
)
"
B ro
RD
EL
5
PO AZ
ok
POND LN
WAKE
P LA RD HH PE EPER
RD FAR M TC
NAL D WI
MC D O
Aerial Photography is 2008 1:40,000 (1 meter) Color NAIP
R
DR M08
R
RN W
OB IN
)
"
TH O GOBB LER LN
BE
AK "
)
HAW E
A
)
"
L aP
"
)
RO"
CH
)
" )
)B"
LN
la
APPL E RIDG E RD
)"
" ) ")" " )IN
t
RD
)")
!DR M09S3.01
)"
" )
" )
"
2
iver
22 )"
"
! ! ") )
!
!
) !
Ri v
er L a Pla t t e R
te
IR ISH RD
e Ri v e r
""
)
Mc
a tt
WIDOW
"
) )"
)
l
)"
") )")
aP
) "
"
Ca
R iv e r
)
"
L
) "
" )
s
) "
" )
"
L RD
)"
" ) "
" )
be
)
Br
"
) )"
H IL
)
" ) )
"
) " ) W
CR O
) "
"
SP EA R ST
)!
)
" ! 2 " te
) "
" )
R
oo
U
SHELBURNE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
at
M09 M 5644-9010
Pl
k
LN
La
HINESBURG
M
*
#
MOUNT PH
R
T2.01
ud
FA
OT
Ho
O
llo
LAPLATTE RIVER WATERSHED STORMWATER PROJECT
PR
w
TA
SOAR
ILO RD
Br
o ok
M10
IN
RD RD
OR CH A
CHARLOTTE
G HAW
ES WY
NAT UR
N RD
K
LIM E KIL
SHELBURNE, VERMONT
GR EE N
LN
SH
E
T1.06 LB
UR
BUS H R
PL OUF
CR OSS W
NE
FA
e R ive r
L LS
LN
FE FAR
JSC DATE:
D
TE N STONES
RD
JSC RKS
IND DR
BO UTIN
at
N PA ST UR E
March 2010
Pl
M
k
La
DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED

ee
LN
LaPlatte River
Cr
cC
RD
SCALE: SHEET:
CIR
es
ab
1" = 1300'
N
ET HAN
lm
e s Brook
L
RY
Ho
1233 Shelburne Road, Suite 150

UA
TH 42
AL L E N
PROJECT NO.: South Burlington, Vermont 05403

CT
F
SAN
CT S
EAS T RY OW (802) 864-1600 Fax: (802) 864-1601
T2.02 E AD F 3452-03
HW Y
M
ER IN G F www.miloneandmacbroom.com
RIVERV IE IS P
W DR WH F
ONEIL RD
*
#
POND ACC ESS RD
RD
µ
M12S5.02
RICHMOND
M
TO
POND RD
ok
OT
D
BE E B E
MONARC H RD
GR
LN
Br o
RB
RD CH
TE
UR
SWA
2A
LOST RD R
FOR EST RD
Y PE M
IN
ni e
WILLISTON
CHAMBE RS PARK RD P RD
LT
B
W
RO UTE
ES
ER R D
U
OAK HILL RD
N
N
n
H IN
RO CK Y RIDGE
CIR hn
Jo h
Jo
ni
e
PAL M
B ro
ST. GEORGE ok
ENM
D IM
BU SHEY DR
PE E T
N
SH
ANS
ARD L N
YL
IC K
CH
E
T PR IT
RM
MO U N W LN
NT
SHADO
FR OG
RD
RD
AN
D
OU
RICHMOND
AY C IR
SHELBURNE LE E W
HO
RD
DC
IL L
S EN
M13S3.02 EE H
LL
MA G
OL
OW
LVD
RGE B
SHADY
O
ST GE
RD
Lake Iroquois
PINE
5447-9015
SU
E SHOR E LN
M
DYNAMITE HIL
NOOK
L RD
ME
*
#
S
HORE
RF
LN
IEL
SH
E
DR
LB
DR
Jo h
D
Johnni e Brook
UR
DR
nn
D
NE
ie B J
ON
HI
NE r oo
k
HM
SB
RD
oh
nie
0 0.25 0.5 1
RIC
UR D
n
G EE Br
D
OLD
oo
Miles
RD W
ER
UPP ER ACCESS RD k
NCH
PUM
T4.07
LA
PR
BUTTE RNUT LN
RUN
AVA
D
OD
RD
VE
WO
UN CO
AS R POINT
RD
KOZ PIKE S
D
WE E D R
RD
L
TAIN
ORE
T4.06
M OUN
N
H
IL L
SW S
APPL E RIDG E RD
TA
D
KR
Y
O
CAT
BR O
RO CK
D
PL PON
ANTH
ST
RY R
L RD O AW
H IL K
O NY R
W IC BE
CR O
LN
H RR
M LN
Y
M
SUNSET LN E
5644-9010
HI
R 3681-9010 HI
R
D
LL
TE
FA
RD
TR IL LIU
TA
*
# *
#
OT
D
MR
MA P
I
LR
R
S FA
O
LAKE ST
HIDDEN PAST URE RD

L IN G
PR
ID
BIL
LE T
TA
GE
RD
R
EP T W Y
EE L
WINDSW
Legend
FIR
SUNS ET CT
RD E E FLY
N
CE RO GERS WY LN
PL A
RD
5865-9010
DG E
E LN
*
#
SH
T5.02
E RI
E
NW
LB
H OUS
UR W
RD
AUB
TL
NE E *
#
FA AC
SE
PL
R
L
SUGA
LS
N
RD
SU
BO UTIN
ANR SGA Identified Stormwater Inputs
D
OOD L
N F
POND R
WIL DW GARVEY FAR M RD
TH 18 T4.05 T SE NE CA CR
EE K RD
RD
ES
D
SR
L
MA
WI
W RD
MMI Stormwater Points
ST
ON
JO
3862-9015
H IN S
MOL LY
DAN
RS
HUNTINGTON
) "
)
MM
ADO
BIR CHWOOD DR
TH 42
" )
"
WOODLA
T
"
)
*
#U MO
DAL
CO
F
JO U R
F R UN
E
)
"
TA
3393-9015.A
LOM
IN
RD
WY
)
"
E RD
Catchbasin
FF R") ")") ")")") R SP R
IN G
A
)
"
2
!*
#2
CH
! )"
"
CT
)
ND DR
k
t r i c k Br o o
! )
"
F ok
!
OR
a _
^ HILLVIEW
TE RR o
3777-9010 ll B
N PA
Hi
P
RD LN
r
Concrete Pad
IL
*
# NE 5239-INDS LD
ST UR
32
"
)
O A
2
R 3503-9010
!
5993-9015 T4.04 ON
!
TH
c h er
BI ) "
)
_
^ *
# PART R
CD
"
PI
RD
RD T IDGE H
CA RP ENTER TE ILL M E
E LN
*
#
BA L
RS TT
*
# M15S2.02 RD
P
W MIL L E TE X
Be e
BIS HO
EE
LE D
RD AS
Detention Pond
RD
L
TH BR
PL E AS
U R
ARD
M12S5.01 CV IL OO
D
KR
G
L
D
SR
EW O
M13
S CO
_
^
ENO
A
"
)
_")
^
NT VIE
OD
)
"
2 F
RNE
la tt e R i
!
T4.03
!
FE R N R D
)
"
Drop Inlet
THUND
LN
RE D PIN
é
C
P
"
La
RR
a W LN
aP l t t e Riv e 3496-9010
ve
BE AV
D
r
ER PO
La P l a tte
ER D R
*
# SP EN CE ND R
D
E
MEC HANICSV ILLE RD
R HIL L R
L
r
ve
RO
TE
RD
iv e
r
Dry Well
X
Patr ick Canal

Ri
AS C
"N
F
La
la
)
"
U
"
)
)
"
te R
2
ok
)
"
! HI
t
)
"
TE
)
"
!2 )
"
!
2 2!2 LL
tt e
t
!!2 ! 2
! !!!"
)
P
! )
" !
2
ro
)
") !
!"
RD
!
)
"
1
kB
R
La P l a
R i v er
16
te
RRD U
a
La
S c
Pl
G
RIG
R iv
t e R iver
P la
t
Grease Trap
Pat r i
M12
M
E
EA
er
La Pl a
RD
DO
AW
L L
R T4.02 HI
W
K
tte
i v er
La
EN
LN
W
M13S3.01
B ro ok YD
OO
_ F ^ Manhole
_ MU
Pa tr ick F R* LB HA
2
!
M14
D
!
^ ER
M11S4.01
#
LN
RY
3034-9010 COMMERCE ST L N
PIE T TE
M15
)
" )"
" ) _")")
^ _
^
U
U
!
) U 4376-INDC
)
"
L aPlat t e M15S2.01
)
" R
LE AVE
)"
)
TH
"
"
) )"
"
T3.01 R3783-9010
e River
) )"
" "
)
Outfall
" )
O
)"
"
LaP la tt LaP _
^
V IL
)
*
#
RN
"
) ) "
" )") )
"
M E ADO
) "
er
)"
)
3583-9015
)
"
4376-9015 4376-9015.1
)
"
Ri
la tt
)"
" )"
" ) ""
)) "
)"
) "
)"*
#
N
L AG
BU
eR
v
al
)"
"
F^
_
S W ORT
)
) R IC W Y
iv 2
SH
_
^ *
# ! )
"
er an
!
D)
)"
)E "
"
FR"
)"
")
EH
RD
)
"
kC
)
"
W RD
2
!
! )
"
)R
D _
^
AL L"
^ P atric Outlet Structure
E IG
SIC
)
"
"
2
! U
H RD
RM " _
^ RD
! )
A" ) " KM
)
F" _
HT S
)"
AN K
EE
)
)"
)
T4.01^
)
)
"
CR
"
KE
_M16
R
F _
^ L L
HI T
LNL
)
"
3690-9010
)"
")" )" E YS RD BE RD
FI
)
Spillway
#")") ")")")2
)*
" !")") EL
RD
!
U
!
LAGOO
_
^
ST E
_^
^ _ ")")") ^ )D R CK
R _ D
19
"
O
HR
HINESBURG
LL A
TH
G PL
HI PATR IC AS
N
LaP
OSC
R
RD
WAL
TS
Stone Filter
LAVIGNE
BE AR LN
ARS
WY
la tte
4323-9015 3281-9010
HEM LOC K HILL RD

# ") 2 BUCK HILL RD E
LYM AN MEA DOW
!
é
C
""
)
LN
!
TT E R D ^
_ *
CH AR LO F MMI Stormwater Lines
MA JE
R
LYM *
#^
_")
A
^ N PARK RD
"
)
EVANSON RD
i ver
HI
3440-9015
HA
ST
)
"
NORT H RD
LL RD
S
YM
_
^ D
N
TIC L
72
OR CH AR
_
^ *
#
UR U CK HILL RD W HAYDEN HILL RD W
EA
"
)
B
DO
2 )!
" )
" )
"
Other
!
N
3570-9010
FRIENDSHIP LN
2 )
"
B ro o k
W
)! "
)
" )"
)"
"")
CH IC KA
!
) ")")"
)" ))
_
^ "
)
"
LN
F
_
^ )
" )
"
D HIL L
*
# )
"
T3.02
)
" )
"
)
"
_2 ^
^ _)
"
L
!")a")Pl
)
" _
^
H ill
a
DEE LN
!
FF
F Culvert
_
^ RD
he r
_
^ IL L
tte
i v YH
R
RR
Beec
POS T E
KB
er
A C
BL
Overland
D FF ORY R D F
IC
URG R OB SE RV
AT
HINES B
HE L N
Stormline
FOR
SILVER ST
E ST S
TI
M
BE
E
R
Swale
DGE
PO
D
M OU R
La
RD
N
ARM at BEE CHE R HIL L RD EC ONO

D
HE R F
te
Pl
FL E TC
RD
RD
Riv B ro o k
B ee ch er H ill
CB
er
F Subwatershed Boundary
ok
La
l Br o
H il
Pl
GE RD
TE R ID
he r
att
CO YO
Towns
Hollo w Broo k
c
ee
eR
T5.01 B
BA LDWIN RD
CHARLOTTE
i ve
r
FM17
Lakes and Ponds
LaP
BL
A CK T3.03
DO
la
GL
Roads
tte R
N
RE
i ver
D
LN TR
SW E ET U RD OBR
BIT T E R CK BU RR IT
T
IE N
Railroad
ME
Hollow Brook
LN ADO LN
M11S4.02 W S BISS ONET TE
La
at
te
Pl
Ri
ver River (By Stream Order)
6092-9015 H
ol
lo
*
# w
Br
W LN oo
WINDR O k
Ho
DR
llo
POND RD
W VIEW
w
5
MAL LARD
GILM AN RD
Br LINCOLN
RD
F oo Hol lHoIL
wLBRrD
D
k
N
ook
PO
H ol l
o
N
O
ER
H
wB
4204-9015
r oo
BE AN
#U
*! Hollo w B ro o k
k
RD
T3.04 M18 ^
_
U
!
R
U
BR
^UR
_
O
RD 3041-9010 OK
N SID
aP
HINESBURG STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
GA
RE *
# EL
la v M20
Ri
L
N
er
tte
Riv LaP tt
er a
Pl
e
la tte
R i ver La
LAPLATTE RIVER WATERSHED STORMWATER PROJECT

PR INDL E RD
OLD R
er
tte Riv
MEAD FARM RD
LaP la
OUTE
M19
11 6
HINESBURG, VERMONT
F
RD
RAVE N HILL
AN DR
JSC DATE:
MUL L IG JSC RKS
March 2010
DR
E
HINES R
D
L
BB
GA
CO
TH 3
RD
NE SCALE: SHEET:
1
1" = 1300'
R
MA G
CI
R
D
AT ER R D
DR IN KW H ol low B roo k 1233 Shelburne Road, Suite 150
R
IC H
PAW
PROJECT NO.: South Burlington, Vermont 05403

IL L
HA
o k HOL
(802) 864-1600 Fax: (802) 864-1601
Br o
RD
L OW
C
ISHAM RD
lo w 3452-03
CAT
Hol
RD
www.miloneandmacbroom.com
RO SC OE
TH 27
RD
F
_
^
R
F
_U
µ
)
"
^
3561-9010 SOUT
HVIE
L a Pla tt
RID
AIR PAR
W DR
)
" )
"
DR ) )
"
NE
)
" *
#
""
) "
RA
G
"
) ))
RIDG EF
S TO
"
EF I
) "
"
RE D
BB
)
" )"
") )
" ) )
"
SIM MONS DR
I
K RD
TR
e R i v er
LD
D
IE
P LE DR
RD
D D
LD R D
ER WE E D R
)"
")
ID G McCabe s
SR B
)
"
P
BE
)
"
CR AB A
D
LR
r oo k
A
MEACH ISLAND RD ZE
CH
POP
HA
SHELBURNE
POND LN
WAKE
L AR D RD
FAR M IT CH PE EPER
RD
R
NAL D W
MC D O
RN
DR GOB BLE R LN M08
R
TH O
)
"
OB IN
HAW
"
)
La Pl
"
) )
"
at
APPL E RIDG E RD
)"
" )" )
" "
)
)"
"
te
)"
M M09S3.01
LN
)
")") )
2 R iver
)"
" )
"
22
! ! ") ")
) !
RD
! !
er
!
te R iv IR ISH RD
)
"
cC
WIDOW
la t
)"
")
URNE
)
" ))
""
P
)" )")
a
"
La
RD
)"
" ) " )
be
"
Br L RD
) "
" ) " ) )
" )
"
R
)
)
" )
"
IN D H IL
)E! R OB" o
B
)
"
ORE
s
)AK" )
" )"
)
W
W CR O
) "
SHE L
"
)! 2
LN
)"
"
BO ST W
) "
R
M09 Mu d Hol l o
SH
ok
M
5644-9010
R
DOR SE
R
WAY
FA
*
#
ICK R D
T2.01
OT
w
ORD
Br
O
T ST
PR
oo
0 0.25 0.5 1
E
X COV
TA
SOAR
k
FO
SILVE R
M10
Miles
IN
G HAW
ES W Y
NAT UR
N RD
LIM E KIL
K
SF SH
LN
OR E
TY T1.06 LB
PL OUF
R UR
CR OSS W
D NE
FA
L
RD
LS
FE FAR
RD
BO UTIN
M
IND DR
RD
k
HA
ee
M
cC
LaPlatte River
TE N STONE S CIR
ORC
Cr
LN
ab
RD
es
es
LN
lm
ARY
Brook
Ho
TH 42
D
LOS T
KR
CTU
GR EE NB
MOUNT PHILO RD
CT
AC
S
EAS T RY OW
SAN
FOR E S
k
T2.02 AD
AR
FF
ee
G ME
R IN
M
Cr
E
IS P
TA
USH R D
WH F
T
es
RD
3777-9010
lm
N PA
RD
Ho
M06S2.02 *
# EIL
ON
ST UR
RIVE R
d Hol low Broo
E LN
k
k ER R D
V
r ee
T
T1.07 CA RPE N
IE W D
Mu
M12S5.01
C
es
M13
R
Ho
lm
CL ARK RD
a t te R i
Legend
NT RD
k
GUIR E PE La
Pl
MC
ee
r La
ve
ET HAN
Cr
aP l a t te Riv e
P la
ve
L aP R i
l a tte
r
es
SP EA R
tte R iv e
i ve
lm
L
r
ve
A
er
R
Ho
LLEN H
T2.03
Ri
R iv
F
La
M11 la
tte
*
#
t
ST
t te
tt e
P
Pl a
L a P la
te
WY
La
a
La
Pl
R iv
T1.08 te Riv er
M12 la t
k F ANR SGA Identified Stormwater Inputs
er
L aP P la
M cC
LN
DR IFT
oo
R
k
SNOW
tte
iv er
La
ee
M13S3.01 MMI Stormwater Points
Br
a be
Cr
ow
M11S4.01 M14
es
s Br
ol
o ll
m
dH
oo
H
LE AVE
Catchbasin
Mu
)
"
k
Holme s Creek
N
S W ORT
D
LAKE R
Concrete Pad
H RD
N
O
RT
H
O
LD
R Detention Pond
k
E
r
ee
CA
C
RR
H RUN
RD
IA
IGHT
lme s
G
N
McCab e
E
olm
Drop Inlet
RD
é
C
"
Ho
es C
re e
s Broo k
D
Dry Well
LR
ON HIL
k
C
"N
MU T T R
WE S TG
PAT TON
D
NR
T2.04 HINESBURG
AT E R D
Grease Trap
ER
O N PL T2S1.01
SUT T
TAV
GE RD
W
MU T T
ree k
OODS
N RD
FOX R U
3344-9010^
_
AR R IA
ON H
sC
me
WOODLAND WY
Manhole
*
#
SHE E H
Ho
ol
2
!
!
H
lm e
ILL D
OL DE C
A
RD
MU R P H
e s Br o o k
E
s Cre
LOT T
N GRE E
R
CH AR
CH UR C
Outfall
VAL LE Y
SOUT H
_
^
Bingh am Broo k
ok
ek
Y RD
B ro
N
WIND _
^
M ud H o l l o w
S W EP
H
T LN
Cab
VIE W D
Pr i n g l e B
HILL R
r
oo
k U
Outlet Structure
Mc
r
P ri n g
wB
oo
R
llo
Ho
k
ud
le
S
M
Spillway
HILL RD
EW
RM RD
TE N ERLYS PL
JACKSON
B
U
!
E R FA
ro o
H
FL E TC
SM
MU S
k
NE Y
EU M
BEV
r oo k
URG RD
HINES B
Stone Filter
ok
RD
B
sB
ro
P ringle be
Ca CHARLOTTE MMI Stormwater Lines
Pri
e Mc
ng
BA LDWIN RD
Br
oo
l
oo
Br
McCabes Broo k
RE D
)
"
_
^
le
)
"
Other
i ng
k
TAIL
) )
" "
Pr
BEAN RD
LN
BL
T1.09 ^^
_
5154-9015
U
! _
R A CK
HO DO
Culvert
LYNR ICK AC
ME *
# GL
ST ok GSIDE D
R N
EA
D
DR
Br o MOR NIN
RE
D
m
SUNS ET RD
LN TR
SW E ET
ha
U RD
BIT T E R
Overland
T
CK BU RR IT
RE S
Bi n g
LN
gl M11S4.02
Pr
LAKE R
e Br
in
oo k
T2S1.02
Stormline
D
FE R RY R D
6092-9015
Br oo k
*
#
T2.07
Swale
RO OT
Th or p
Bi
am
ng
GU
R
h
IN E
D
AR
Br
T2.06
oo k
D
T2.05 T2S2.01
ok
BO
W
Br o
NL
N
Towns
rp
Th o
PR INDL
E RD Lakes and Ponds
I NL
N T2S2.02
RO B RD
Roads
N
RE
GA
Y
Mu
W
d
S
M
Bi
A
LI
IL
Ho l
Railroad
B roo k
ng
L
CO
lo w
h am
RD
UNTAIN
RD
B ro
MO
orp
PE AS E
RD
Br
IN
D
ok
Th
oo
N
BA LDW
RIDGE RD
PO
k
RE
FI
Thorp Brook
BING HAM BROOK RD

STO N
E WA
4137-9010
5
LL LN
*
#
T horp B
D
AY RD GE R
CO NV
ER S E B STO C
K BR ID
T2S2.03
k
WE S
WILDWOOD W
RD
LUC Y
r oo k
K
ROC
CANNON POINT RD
IT
o
LE Y
SP L 3353-9010
g h am B ro
LN S
D
UPP ER M
*
#
R
MA G
EE R
D 3210-9010
H IG
B AT ER R D
DR IN KW
IC H
*
#
EADOW LN
Bin
IL L
Kimball Brook
E RD
ASH
MEADOW
RD
N WY
QUARTE R
O
CO MM
CHARLOTTE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE

SIDE DR
M ILE RD
Le
Cr e e k wi
sC
L ew
is r ee LAPLATTE RIVER WATERSHED STORMWATER PROJECT
ok
k
FAR M R D
ro
LN
IS LAND AL C E DAR
ek
ll B
RD
k
SE NT IN E MIL E
Bingham Broo
ON
HA
ba
C r ee ek
is k re
Cre
m
LF
L ew
Ki
TRL
is
M
T OW N
L ew
C
D
ILE
L e wi s
E R OL
Le
k
L e wis C
CHARLOTTE, VERMONT
UPP w is C ek
ro o
Le
re e re
wi
k Lewis C reek
RD
N TR L Le w i
EDGE
TOW
sC
ll B
LOW E
R OL D T2S1.03
e
re
ba
Cr e
s
RD
ek
MOUNTAINS
Cr
ek
k im
RO SC OE
e
ro o K
s
JSC DATE:
wi
ONS POIN
T RD
JSC RKS
ok
Le
THOM PS
March 2010
Le w
B ro
RD
al l B

BL AC K
is
BA LDW IN
rp
SCALE:
Cr
SHEET:
o
Kim
r o ok
Th
RD
OAK HILL
ee
1" = 1300'
W ILL O
k
ok
or
B
1233 Shelburne Road, Suite 150

ro
p
ll B
W LN
Th
D PROJECT NO.: South Burlington, Vermont 05403

ba
INT R SF N
OM PS ONS PO D
DR
m
EAS T T
H
TO
A (802) 864-1600 Fax: (802) 864-1601
Ki
3452-03
PAL M
www.miloneandmacbroom.com
DR
SA
W
M
ER
IL
ER L
L
IV
RD
LL
N
DO
Appendix B – Impervious Surface Calculation Procedures
Stormwater Analysis Documentation

Provided by Mark Suozzo of UVM College of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences
January 26, 2010
NDVI Impervious Cover and Impervious Density Documentation
This document describes the steps taken to create the impervious cover maps provided for the
LaPlatte River Watershed stormwater analysis. Maps were created using ArcGIS and Imagine
software.
NDVI Impervious Cover-
Reasoning:
To create high quality impervious cover data over the entire watershed imagery data was
selected. Using the imagery, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) values were
calculated with 1 meter resolution. Low NDVI values indicated the presence of impervious
cover, however interference from surface water was present. This interference was corrected by
overlaying known surface water features and marking low NDVI values as surface water rather
than impervious cover. Additional corrections were made by overlay known roads and driveways
and indicating those areas as impervious cover.
Data Used:
Imagery data from the NAIP imagery survey was used, the data contained four bands (red, green,
blue and infrared) at a 1 meter resolution. Surface water features and E911 roads information
was taken from VCGI.
Process:
1. Several separate image files, each covering a separate portion of the watershed, were
combined using Imagine software. The combined image covered beyond the extent of the
watershed.
2. The combined image was processed to determine the NDVI values for each raster cell.
NDVI values were calculated by the following equation, where NIR represents the near
infrared values and RED represents the red values.

3. NDVI raster data was imported into ArcGIS (All previous steps could also have been
performed in ArcGIS).
4. A threshold value of -0.22 was used to determine impervious area, values below this were
considered impervious while values above were considered to be previous. The resulting
raster only indicated impervious by a 1 and impervious by 0.
5. Surface waters were added in shapefile format, the polygons were converted into raster
data compatible with the impervious cover raster. Any areas covered by surface water
were converted to pervious cover.
6. VCGI streams layers were imported. A buffer of 5 meters was created around the
streams. This buffer polygon was converted to a raster in a manner similar to the surface
waters layer. Any areas covered by the buffer were converted into pervious cover.
7. E911 roads data was imported. A buffer of 3 meters was created around the roads. This
buffer polygon was converted to a raster in a manner similar to the surface waters layer.
Any areas covered by the buffer were converted into impervious cover.
8. The final impervious cover raster was clipped to the extent of the subwatershed.
Impervious Density-
Reasoning:
To better locate areas with high density of impervious surfaces a density map was created. This
map was intended to be combined with soils data to indicate areas where stormwater infiltration
practices could be utilized. Density was determined by using E911 roads, driveways and
buildings data.
Data Used:
E911 Roads, Driveways and Buildings data from VCGI.
Process:
1. Imported roads, driveways and buildings into the area defined by the watershed.
2. Roads and driveways were converted to point features using Hawth’s tools Path to point
tool.
3. Road, Driveway and building point data was used to create a density raster of impervious
features per square acre. The density tool searched within a two acre radius to find
impervious features.


LaPlatte Stormwater Report 2010 With Town Maps (57.5 MB)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LaPlatte Stormwater Report 2010 With Town Maps (57.5 MB)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LaPlatte River Watershed

Stormwater Infrastructure Study

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iv

1.0 Project Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7

2.0 Watershed and Subwatersheds .......................................................................................... 11

3.0 Geology ............................................................................................................................. 15

4.0 Land use / Land cover ....................................................................................................... 21

5.0 Subwatershed Hydrology .................................................................................................. 28

6.0 Stormwater Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 32

8.0 Stormwater Treatment Projects and General Recommendations ..................................... 43

2009-20010 LaPlatte River Watershed

Appendix A – Town Stormwater Infrastructure Maps ................................................................. 62

Appendix B – Impervious Surface Calculation Procedures ......................................................... 63

2009-20010 LaPlatte River Watershed

2009-2010 LaPlatte River Watershed

A GIS study was performed by a University of Vermont student by subwatershed to estimate

• Limit the amount of impervious surface and preserve open space

2009-2010 LaPlatte River Watershed

2009-2010 LaPlatte River Watershed

1.1 Project Overview

• Relate stormwater runoff and infrastructure to previously collected geomorphic, habitat,

• Identify potential stormwater design projects for implementation.

• Provide recommendations for further river protection planning strategies.

2009-2010 LaPlatte River Watershed

1.2 Project Need / History of Stormwater Management

2009-2010 LaPlatte River Watershed

2009-2010 LaPlatte River Watershed

Many sources of runoff are not covered by a permit.

• Road systems contribute a significant amount of impervious surface and channelization

• Impervious surfaces created before the 1970’s when permitting began.

In non-stormwater impaired watersheds, non-industrial projects creating less than 1 acre of

2009-2010 LaPlatte River Watershed

B ee c her H ill Bro ok

Figure 1: LaPlatte River Watershed

Background aerial imagery from 2008 National

Created March 23, 2010

SHELBURNE ST. GEORGE

M05 Reach Subwatersheds (By Data Source)

LaPlatte River Watershed

Map By: JSC Sheet:

Date: January 2010 Figure 2

HINESBURG 1233 Shelburne Road, Suite 150

T2.06 Map By: JSC Sheet:

HINESBURG 1233 Shelburne Road, Suite 150

3.1 Bedrock Geology

Table 1: Summary of Bedrock Geology in the LaPlatte River Watershed

Oc Cutting Dolostone 1,489 4.4 Massively bedded gray dolostone.

2009-2010 LaPlatte River Watershed

LAKE Lake 4 0.0

Osp Stony Point Shale 30 0.1 Black calcareous fissile shale.

Totals: 33,773 100.0

2009-2010 LaPlatte River Watershed

Figure 4: Bedrock Geology of LaPlatte Watershed

The bedrock geology dataset includes data that was

Map originally created by Mark Suozzo as part of

Figure 5: Suficial Geology of LaPlatte Watershed

The surficial geology data consists of surficial

Map originally created by Mark Suozzo as part 0 0.5 1 2 3 4

Table 2: Summary of Surficial Materials in LaPlatte River Watershed

Figure 6: Hydrologic Soil Groups and Wetlands

Table 3: Summary of Soils in LaPlatte River Watershed

Hydrologic Area Percent

4.0 Land use / Land cover