Vermont Business Magazine The City of South Burlington received word this afternoon that Judge Crawford approved the motion for the City of South Burlington to participate as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the F35 National Environmental Policy Act Litigation—Zbitnoff et al v. Deborah Lee James. Pursuant to a resolution passed by the South Burlington City Council at a special meeting held June 22, 2016, the MEMO below was filed in Federal Court Tuesday. The MEMO sought entrance to the Zbitnoff et al v. Deborah Lee James litigation to participate as amicus curiae.
STIPULATED MOTION BY THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN BRIEFING AS AMICUS CURIAE
The City of South Burlington (“City” or “South Burlington”) hereby moves for
leave to participate in the briefing in the above-referenced action as amicus curiae.1
More particularly, South Burlington requests leave to file a legal memorandum in
support of Plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory judgment that: (I) The Final
Environmental Impact Statement for United States Air Force F-35A Operational
Basing issued September 2013 (“FEIS”) did not provide adequate information as to
noise impacts on South Burlington and neighboring communities (addressed in
Count I of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint dated April 29, 2015); and (II) The
FEIS did not provide adequate information as to potential health and safety
impacts which could result from noise or an F35-A crash within or near the City of
South Burlington (addressed in Plaintiffs’ Count VI and IX). Counsel for South
1 In anticipation of the Court potentially granting this motion, South Burlington is simultaneously
filing “South Burlington’s Amicus Curiae Memorandum in Limited Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Summary Judgment.”
2
Burlington hereby represents that counsel for all of the parties have assented to
South Burlington’s participation as an amicus.2
Memorandum of Law
This Court has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant South
Burlington leave to file an amicus memorandum. See Concerned Area Residents for
the Environment v. Southview Farm, 834 F. Supp. 1410, 1413 (W.D. N.Y. 1993).
Based on the facts and circumstances, the Court should exercise its discretion to
grant South Burlington’s motion for leave to participate as amicus curiae.
As the Court is well aware, the United States Air Force has decided to
beddown the F-35A Lightning II (“F-35A”) with the 158th Fighter Wing of the
Vermont Air National Guard, stationed at Burlington Air Guard Station (“AGS”) at
Burlington International Airport (“BTV”). See, e.g., Record of Decision for the First
Air National Guard F-35A Operational Base, December 2, 2013. South Burlington
participated in the Air Force’s pre-decisional administrative process. For example,
its City Council submitted a June 11, 2012 letter raising concerns that the United
States Air Force F-35A Draft Operational Basing Environmental Impact Statement
dated March 2012 did not adequately address issues including noise, health, and
safety impacts potentially associated with the F-35A beddown. See AR 55436-
55456. Further, the South Burlington Planning Commission submitted a June 19,
2 Defendant’s assent is conditioned upon the following: (1) The current briefing/oral argument
schedule does not change (i.e., the merits hearing remains scheduled for July 5, 2016); (2) South
Burlington’s amicus brief does not exceed 10 pages; and (3) South Burlington’s amicus brief is filed
by June 28, 2016 so that Defendant would have 3 business days to respond in writing if it so chooses.
Though there is no parallel rule applicable to matters pending in District Court, stipulation of all
parties is a dispositive means of achieving amicus curiae status in federal appellate courts. See
F.R.A.P. Rule 29.
3
2012 letter stating concern as to the lack of information how F-35A noise impacts
would affect goals set forth in the City’s Comprehensive Plan regarding
preservation of housing and neighborhoods. See AR 8396-98.
BTV, including the entire AGS, is located entirely within the City of South
Burlington. See FEIS § BR1.0 at BR4-1. A significant number of South
Burlington’s residents, institutions, and governmental services will be impacted by
the F-35A beddown decision. In the amicus curiae memorandum, South Burlington
will brief the Court on those impacts which have not been sufficiently addressed in
the FEIS. As South Burlington is filing said memorandum simultaneously with
this motion seeking amicus curiae status, the City incorporates the content of that
memorandum here in support of this motion.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons and in light of stipulation of all the parties, South
Burlington respectfully requests the Court grant the City leave to file an amicus
curiae memorandum as herein described.
Dated at Burlington, Vermont on June 28, 2016.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
BY: /s/ John H. Klesch
John H. Klesch, Esq.
Stitzel, Page and Fletcher, P.C.
171 Battery Street
P.O. Box 1507
Burlington, Vermont 05402-1507
[email protected]
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, John H. Klesch, hereby certify that on June 28, 2016, I electronically filed
the foregoing STIPULATED MOTION BY THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN BRIEFING AS AMICUS CURIAE with the
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, where it is available for viewing and
downloading.
BY: /s/ John H. Klesch
John H. Klesch, Esq.
K:\WPDOC\LIT\SON16-028 F-35 stip motn.628.docx
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
IGOR ZBITNOFF, EILEEN ANDREOLI, )
JEFFREY FROST, RICHARD JOSEPH, )
JULIET BETH BUCK, RAY GONDA, STOP )
THE F-35 COALITION and THE CITY OF )
WINOOSKI, )
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 5:14-cv-132
)
DEBORAH LEE JONES, Secretary of the )
Air Force, )
Defendant. )
SOUTH BURLINGTON’S AMICUS CURIAE MEMORANDUM IN LIMITED
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The City of South Burlington (“City” or “South Burlington”), as amicus
curiae,1 submits the following memorandum in limited support of Plaintiffs’ Motions
for Summary Judgment. More particularly, South Burlington respectfully contends
that the Sept. 2013 Final Environmental Impact Statement for United States Air
Force F-35A Operational Basing (“FEIS”): (I) Did not provide adequate information
as to noise impacts on the City, or mitigation thereof (Count I of Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint dated April 29, 2015); and (II) Did not provide adequate
information as to potential health and safety impacts which could result from noise
or an F-35A crash within or near the City (Plaintiffs’ Count VI and IX).
Background
The United States Air Force has decided to beddown the F-35A Lightening II
1 In light of timing, South Burlington has filed this Memorandum simultaneously with its Stipulated
Motion by the City of South Burlington for Leave to Participate in Briefing as Amicus Curiae.
2
(“F-35A”) with the 158th Fighter Wing of the Vermont Air National Guard
(“VTANG”), stationed at Burlington Air Guard Station (“AGS”) at Burlington
International Airport (“BTV”). See Record of Decision for the First Air National
Guard F-35A Operational Base, December 2, 2013. South Burlington respectfully
agrees with Plaintiffs’ contentions that the Air Force has not provided adequate
information to the public concerning resulting noise impacts or mitigation thereof,
as well as potential health and safety risks. See Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Service,
857 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1175 (D. Utah 2012) (Under the National Environmental
Policy Act (“NEPA”), “it is not sufficient only to consider relevant information, but
that information must also be adequately disclosed to the public. NEPA's ‘twin
aims’ are ‘informed agency decision making and public access to information.’”)
(quoting Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683, 707 (10th Cir. 2009)).
The City is a regional employment, trade, housing and transportation center
and home to high quality elementary, secondary, and higher education schools. See
generally South Burlington Comprehensive Plan (AR 19471-19688).2 The City
contains a vibrant mix of newer and long-established neighborhoods, serving a
population that is increasingly diverse in its socioeconomic and ethnic composition.
South Burlington is a growing city, as its 2010 population was measured at
2 South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan effective March 9, 2006 was in effect through March 9,
2011, when the 2006 Plan was readopted. See 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan § 1.3 at
1-8 (available at http://www.sburl.com/vertical/Sites/%7BD1A8A14E-F9A2-40BE-A701-
417111F9426B%7D/uploads/SB_Comprehensive_Plan_Complete_Adopted_2-1-2016.pdf). The Index
for Administrative Record, Zbitnoff v. James, Civil Action No. 514-cv-132 (D Vt.), incorrectly labels
the version of the Comprehensive Plan in the AR as the “2001” Comprehensive Plan, but the actual
document in the AR is, in fact, the 2006 Plan.
3
approximately 17,900, an increase of between 13-20% from 2000. FEIS §
BR3.11.1.1 at BR4-77; AR 60015.
The City is strongly committed to providing residents a healthy and
enjoyable environment in their homes, places of employment, and schools. See, e.g.,
AR 19602. A healthy local economy supports municipal services and the City’s
education system.
I. SOUTH BURLINGTON IS CONCERNED THE FEIS DID NOT
ADEQUATELY REVIEW NOISE IMPACTS AND POSSIBLE
MITIGATION STRATEGIES.
The City’s land area consists of approximately 10,600 acres in the western
portion of Chittenden County, Vermont. AR 19491. The City of Burlington’s land
holdings in South Burlington which make-up BTV, plus residential lands acquired
under the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (“NCP”), total over 880 acres,
approximately eight percent of the City’s total land area.3 Burlington AGS occupies
280 acres within BTV pursuant to a lease with the City of Burlington. FEIS §
BR1.0 at BR4-1.
“[I]ncreased noise is an unavoidable consequence of basing the F-35A at
Burlington.” Defendant’s Mem. In Opp. to Plaintiffs' Motion For Judgment On The
Record And In Support Of Defendant's Cross Motion For Judgment On The Record
(hereafter “Air Force MSJ”) at 36. “[D]ata indicate that the F-35A would generate
generally higher noise levels than the F-16 aircraft it is replacing except in
3 See, e.g., 2012-13 South Burlington Grand List at
http://www.sburl.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B9F3596E0-9721-430E-9F...
7D. The 280 acres listed in the FEIS as the land area for the Burlington AGS do
not appear to include the runways or other elements of BTV utilized by VTANG for flight operations.
See FEIS BR4-5.
4
afterburner take-off.” FEIS at BR4-23. The loudest sound level generated by the F-
35A, compared to the current F-16, is at least 20 dbA higher for every measured
flight activity. See FEIS Table BR3.2-1 at BR4-23.
Much of the land area currently within the 65 db DNL contour due to
operation of F-16s is located within South Burlington. See FEIS Figure 3.2-1 at
BR4-25. Residential land area within the 65 db DNL contour would increase by 150
to 190 acres over the 238 acres of residential land area already within the 65 db
DNL contour due to F-16 operations. FEIS Table 3.10-2 at BR4-67. However, the
FEIS does not state what portion of residential acreage to be affected by F-35A
noise is located within each of the affected municipalities.
BTV is located in the northern part of the City in the Williston Road Area.
Most of the older South Burlington residential neighborhoods are
located in the Williston Road area, and it is the City's intention to
protect existing neighborhoods from commercial encroachment and
traffic disruption. These homes are relatively low-cost by today's
standards. These neighborhoods are home to many of the City's
longtime residents and provide reasonably priced starter homes on the
market for young families.
AR 19493. Neighborhoods in this area include Mayfair Park, Pine Tree Terrace,
O’Brien Farm, Country Club Estates, Valley Ridge, Tree Tops, Twin Oaks, Winding
Brook, and Chamberlin.
The interface between BTV and the immediately adjacent Chamberlin
neighborhood is among the most challenging issues facing the City. Since the late
1990s, and projected through towards 2020, BTV has been carrying out a plan
under the NCP to purchase and demolish noise-impacted homes in the Chamberlin
5
neighborhood within the 65 dB DNL zone. See FEIS BR4-66-67. Since 2003,
approximately 135 homes have been acquired and removed under the NCP, see AR
25170, 25175, negatively impacting affordable housing in the City and reducing
residential property values and property tax revenues.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for preservation of housing and
neighborhoods. See AR 8396-98. Yet, the FEIS does not adequately discuss the
noise impacts to South Burlington’s neighborhoods and affordable housing stock.4
While the FEIS’s description may possibly be accurate regarding noise levels to be
experienced in various locations and the number of households projected to be
affected, the public has not been adequately informed as to the consequences of such
noise levels. Neither does the FEIS discuss with any certainty mitigation measures
to be made available to minimize such consequences, leaving the public uncertain
about what, if any, mitigation might actually take place in the affected South
Burlington neighborhoods.5 Given the history of degradation to the Chamberlin
neighborhood resulting from the current approach of razing noise-affected homes,
South Burlington is vitally interested in alternative feasible mitigation options.
The FEIS falls short of satisfying NEPA’s requirements in this regard.
Noise impact on education of South Burlington public school students is also
a serious concern not adequately addressed in the FEIS. Gertrude E. Chamberlin
4 See Memorandum In Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment or Judgment on the
Record at 28-29 for additional discussion of the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and housing
issues.
5 Appendix C of the FEIS contains broad statements by the Air Force referencing local government
ability to regulate land use around airports. See, e.g., AR 8527.
6
Elementary School is located in the Chamberlin neighborhood adjacent to BTV.
Chamberlin School is located with the 65 dB DNL zone under the current baseline
conditions and will continue to be within the 65 dB DNL after beddown of the F-
35A. See FEIS Figures BR3.2-1 at BR4-32 and BR3.2-2 at BR4-37. The school
currently experiences speech interference due to noise, see FEIS Table BR3.2-5 at
BR4-28, as well as the highest outdoor equivalent noise level of schools presently
affected by F-16 operations. See FEIS Table BR3.2-5 at BR4-28. Chamberlin is
projected to continue to experience the same or increased noise interference with
classroom activities following F-35A beddown. See FEIS Table BR3.2-11 at BR4-33,
Table BR3.2-17 at BR4-38.
The FEIS does not disclose the degree to which the projected noise levels may
adversely affect elementary school students’ learning, nor does it provide a
comprehensive review of potential noise mitigation strategies for the learning
environment. For the past two years, South Burlington has been discussing
possible closure of Chamberlin School due to the impact of aircraft noise on
students. More information is necessary about F35-A noise impacts on Chamberlin
School, particularly due to the broader implications noise-related closure of the
school may have on the City’s education system and its taxpayers.
II. SOUTH BURLINGTON IS CONCERNED THE FEIS DID NOT
ADEQUATELY REVIEW IMPACTS ON HEALTH AND SAFETY.
A. Noise Impacts on Health
The general effects of noise on the health and welfare of the residents of
South Burlington are another concern of the City. To the extent that noise from the
7
operation of the F-35A at BTV will increase residents’ general noise exposure,
speech interference, sleep disturbance and potential for hearing loss, the City has a
strong interest in the public receiving comprehensive information from the Air
Force about these impacts.
Discussion of possible health effects associated with the noise exposures is
presented in a general sense in Appendix C to the FEIS. See AR 11550 et seq.
However, the Air Force does not appear to have addressed whether there exists
available research about possible correlation between health problems and exposure
to noise at levels projected to result from F-35A operations at BTV. Compare AR
60012-13 to AR 11566-11580. There is absence from the FEIS of a either a review
of relevant epidemiological studies or a statement that the Air Force reasonably
exhausted information-gathering on the subject. See, e.g., Robertson v. Methow
Valley Citizens Council, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 1845, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989) (NEPA
“ensures that the agency, in reaching its decision, will have available, and will
carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental
impacts; it also guarantees that the relevant information will be made available to
the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decision-making process
and the implementation of that decision.”). None of the information discussed in
Appendix C to the FEIS appears to specifically review possible adverse health or
learning impacts in South Burlington or the other affected BTV-area communities.
8
B. Aircraft Accident Impacts on Health and Safety
The City also has a very significant interest in the safety of its residents and
its first responder personnel. In the service of its residents, the City has
established a 43-member Police Department and a 28-member Fire Department,
through which emergency response activities are coordinated. The South
Burlington Fire Department (“SBFD”) serves the civilian buildings at BTV while
runways and military buildings are served by the VTANG Fire Department. In
addition, the SBFD supports surrounding communities and VTANG through
mutual aid agreements.
The City appreciates and acknowledges VTANG’s excellent safety record.
See FEIS BR 4-49-50. However, the F-35A is a new aircraft. See FEIS BR4-51.
The FEIS acknowledges that “historical trends show that mishaps of all types
decrease the longer an aircraft is operational as flight crews and maintenance
personnel learn more about the aircraft’s capabilities and limitations.” Id. Stated
another way, the Air Force posits that the risk of mishap for new aircraft, such as
the F-35A, is greater than the risk for established aircraft, such as the F-16.
Data in the FEIS suggests the risk of crash could remain, for some time,
significantly higher for F-35A aircraft at BTV than the risk associated with current
F-16 aircraft. Over a ten year period of operation of the F-22A (Raptor) (used in the
FEIS as comparable for F-35A projections), the “Class A” mishap rate was 7.34
mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. 6 FEIS Table BR3.4-1 at BR4-52. The lifetime
6 Class A mishaps are “the most severe with total property damage of $2 million or more or a fatality
and/or permanent total disability. Comparison of Class A mishap rates for various aircraft types, as
9
rate for the F-16 is 3.55; i.e., less than half of the average rate for the F-22A after
ten years of operation. Moreover, in FY12, the F-22A experienced a much higher
Class A mishap rate of 11.32. Several additional years of crash rates for the F-22A
should now be available for disclosure to the public.
As the FEIS acknowledges, “the primary concern with regard to military
training aviation is the potential for aircraft mishaps (i.e., crashes) to occur.” FEIS
3-25, BR4-49. Densely populated South Burlington neighborhoods are immediately
adjacent to BTV. See FEIS Figures BR3.2-1 and BR3.2-2. BTV’s Runway
Protection Zone (“RPZ”), described as the “area[ ] recognized as having the greatest
risk of aircraft mishaps, most of which occur during take-off or landing,” is also
located in South Burlington. FEIS BR 3-26; 4-49.
Given its location as the site of F-35A operations, the close proximity of
densely populated areas of the City, and the likelihood that South Burlington
emergency personnel would be called to respond to a crash, the City has significant
and very reasonable concern about the crash risk presented by the F-35A. The
City’s concern is heightened by the presence of the “radar-absorbent composite
materials” utilized in the F-35A. FEIS BR 1-4. As reviewed in Plaintiffs’ summary
judgment memoranda, questions about the potential danger arising from
involvement of composite materials in a fire or crash were raised by the public
during the comment period and were subject to internal Air Force discussions.
However, information about such possible risks does not appear to have been
calculated per 100,000 flying hours, provide the basis for evaluating risks among different aircraft
and levels of operations.” FEIS BR 3-27.
10
included in the FEIS. Even if it is true that composite materials and other features
of the F35-A do not pose special risks to first responders or the community, as the
Air Force contends in section VI of the Air Force MSJ, the lack of public information
in response to a substantial area of public concern is problematic. NEPA calls for
disclosure of additional information about the dangers presented by the combustion
of composite and stealth materials so that the City and public can better
understand safety issues inherent in the F-35A beddown at BTV.7
Conclusion
The FEIS issued by the Air Force does not fully address the F35-A beddown’s
potential noise, health, and safety impacts to the City of South Burlington and its
residents, children, first responders, employers and visitors. Additional public
information on these topics will bolster the City’s partnership with VTANG now and
in the future.
Dated at Burlington, Vermont on June 28, 2016.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
BY: /s/ John H. Klesch
John H. Klesch, Esq.
Stitzel, Page and Fletcher, P.C.
171 Battery Street
P.O. Box 1507
Burlington, Vermont 05402-1507
[email protected]
7 The AR reflects that the Air Force contends such information is publicly available or that the Air
Force would make such information available to first responders. See, e.g., AR 64449 et seq.
However, the AR suggests there is more detailed information now available which is possibly
unknown to the public. See, e.g., AR64453 (comparing quantities of stealth materials in F-16 vs F-
35A).
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, John H. Klesch, hereby certify that on June 28, 2016, I electronically filed
the foregoing SOUTH BURLINGTON’S AMICUS CURIAE MEMORANDUM IN
LIMITED SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, where it is available for
viewing and downloading.
BY: /s/ John H. Klesch
John H. Klesch, Esq.
K:\WPDOC\LIT\SON16-028 F-35 amicus MSJ memo.628b.docx