Green Stormwater Infra - Vol 1 Primer PDF

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24817 SHARE

   
Green Stormwater Infrastructure - Volume 1: Primer
DETAILS
166 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-44641-9 | DOI 10.17226/24817
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK James W. Jolley, Mary Ellen Tuccillo, Michelle L. Young, Michael Barrett, and
Anna Lantin; Airport Cooperative Research Program; Transportation Research
Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 174

Green Stormwater
Infrastructure
Volume 1: Primer
James W. Jolley
Mary Ellen Tuccillo
Michelle L. Young
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Waltham, MA
Michael Barrett
Anna Lantin
Michael Baker International
Irvine, CA
Subscriber Categories
Aviation • Environment
Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration
2017
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 174, volume 1
Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in trans- Project 02-62
portation of people and goods and in regional, national, and interna- ISSN 2572-3731 (Print)
tional commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system connects ISSN 2572-374X (Online)
with other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility for ISBN 978-0-309-44641-9
managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of Library of Congress Control Number 2017941561
state and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research
© 2017 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
is necessary to solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate
new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into
the airport industry. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)
serves as one of the principal means by which the airport industry can COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study spon- published or copyrighted material used herein.
sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). ACRP carries out Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agen- publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
cies and not being adequately addressed by existing federal research understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
programs. ACRP is modeled after the successful National Cooperative FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA,
or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and Transit Cooperative Research reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give
Program (TCRP). ACRP undertakes research and other technical activi- appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For
ties in various airport subject areas, including design, construction, legal, other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
maintenance, operations, safety, policy, planning, human resources, and Cover photo © M. Barrett 2015.
administration. ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can
cooperatively address common operational problems.
ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100—
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary participants in NOTICE
the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations such as the Airports The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
Council International-North America (ACI-NA), the American Associa- researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the
tion of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State
program sponsors.
Aviation Officials (NASAO), Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport
Consultants Council (ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2) TRB The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine; and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse
as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the
products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because
FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract they are considered essential to the object of the report.
with the National Academy of Sciences formally initiating the program.
ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport
professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials,
equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research organi-
zations. Each of these participants has different interests and responsibili-
ties, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort.
Research problem statements for ACRP are solicited periodically but
may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility
of the AOC to formulate the research program by identifying the highest
priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products.
Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel
appointed by TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and
research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport
professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels
prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors,
and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the Published research reports of the
project. The process for developing research problem statements and
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing coop-
erative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP are available from
project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Transportation Research Board
Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
intended users of the research: airport operating agencies, service pro- Washington, DC 20001
viders, and academic institutions. ACRP produces a series of research
reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other and can be ordered through the Internet by going to
interested parties; industry associations may arrange for workshops, http://www.national-academies.org
training aids, field visits, webinars, and other activities to ensure that and then searching for TRB
results are implemented by airport industry practitioners. Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public
understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is
objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of
whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies
including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested
in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 174, VOLUME 1

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Michael R. Salamone, Manager, Airport Cooperative Research Program
Marci A. Greenberger, Senior Program Officer
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Senior Editor
ACRP Project 02-62 Panel

Field of Environment
Jennifer M. Fuller, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh, NC (Chair)
James Berg, Port of Portland (OR), Portland, OR
Eddie R. Clayson, Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Salt Lake City, UT
Laura D. Morland, Mead & Hunt, Inc., Middleton, WI
Jesse Nikkel, Southwest Airlines Co., Dallas, TX
Eduardo N. Tovar, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, DFW Airport, TX
Janell Barrilleaux, FAA Liaison
Frank Smigelski, FAA Liaison
Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison

FOREWORD
By Marci A. Greenberger
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
ACRP Research Report 174 defines and discusses green stormwater infrastructure (GSI)
management strategies, a relatively new approach to regulation compliance. As more
airports are proactively incorporating sustainable practices in all aspects of their operations,
federal and state regulatory agencies are also promoting GSI strategies to comply with water
regulations and requirements.
There are some challenges in implementing GSI strategies, such as the perception that
they are expensive and may conflict with safety and operational regulations, as well as a lack
of understanding of what constitutes a GSI strategy, which includes techniques, technologies,
and design elements. The Volume 1: Primer is written for the airport manager, planner,
and engineer seeking to understand stormwater management and how GSI can comply with
regulatory standards and requirements along with other benefits. Volume 2: Guidebook has
been developed to assist airport staff with evaluating the applicability of a GSI strategy and
how to select an appropriate GSI strategy.
Stormwater regulations that affect all airports have evolved so that water quantity is as much
a factor as water quality standards. Stormwater systems were designed to convey water runoff
efficiently without regard to downstream impacts. Most people are familiar with these
systems such as sewers composed of pipes and other mechanical equipment. Over time,
stormwater regulations and requirements have progressed so that they are more encompass-
ing and broad reaching. Concurrently, sustainability activities and techniques have become
more mainstream within aviation and other industries. GSI strategies began to be imple-
mented in the spirit of sustainability to meet stormwater requirements and strategies, though
they are relatively new to the aviation sector.
The Cadmus Group, under ACRP Project 02-62, was selected to develop (1) a primer to
educate airport management on the benefits and applicability of incorporating GSI strategies
into stormwater management programs and (2) a guidebook that identifies best management
practices for GSI and a process to evaluate the appropriate strategies for implementation. The
research was conducted in part by assessing GSI implementation at airports and the potential
application at airports found in other industries.

CONTENTS
ix Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Initialisms

1 Introduction
1 The Problem: Stormwater Management at Airports
5 Two Approaches: Conventional Versus Green Stormwater Infrastructure
9 GSI Best Management Practices

9 Descriptions of GSI Best Management Practices
22 Selection of GSI Best Management Practices
26 Benefits of Green Stormwater Infrastructure

26 Potential Cost Savings
28 Reduction of Energy Costs
28 Reduction of Flooding Damage
29 Protection of Water Quality
29 Stewardship and Aesthetics
30 Applicability to Airports
30 Typical Airport Land Uses
30 Pollutants in Runoff as Related to Airports
31 Applicability of General GSI Guidance Manuals
31 Avoiding the Creation of Wildlife Attractants
34 Challenges and Constraints Associated with

Green Stormwater Infrastructure at Airports
34 Legal and Policy Constraints
35 Retrofit Costs
35 Familiarity with GSI at Airports
35 Maintenance and Evaluation
36 Evaluation of Effectiveness
38 References
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

Acronyms, Abbreviations,
and Initialisms
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program

AOA Airport Operations Area
ATL Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport
AUS Austin-Bergstrom International Airport
BMP Best Management Practice
CDA Chicago Department of Aviation
CLE Cleveland Hopkins International Airport
DEN Denver International Airport
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
GSE Ground Support Equipment
GSI Green Stormwater Infrastructure
LAX Los Angeles International Airport
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
MSGP Multi-Sector General Permit
MSP Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OAK Oakland International Airport
PIT Pittsburgh International Airport
RSA Runway Safety Area
SAN San Diego International Airport
SEA Seattle–Tacoma International Airport
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SUNY State University of New York
SWF Steward International Airport
UDFCD Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
UNHSC University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center
REALCOST Rational Estimation of Actual Likely Costs of Stormwater Treatment

Introduction
This primer on green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) describes the essentials of stormwater
management and GSI for airport managers, planners, engineers, and aviation consultants.
The Problem: Stormwater Management at Airports

Rainfall or melting snow creates stormwater runoff, which, in an undeveloped, pervious area,
will infiltrate into the ground (and provide groundwater recharge), be taken up by vegetation,
and/or evaporate. Excess runoff accumulates and flows across the landscape into local water
bodies, including streams and wetlands.
In a developed area, like an airport, stormwater runoff accumulates on the paved or impervi
ous areas and is collected in a series of drainage ditches, stormwater catch basins, and sewers and
discharged to the nearest receiving waters.
As noted in Figure 1, the volume and speed of stormwater runoff and pollutant load are
increased in paved, impervious areas, in contrast to unpaved, pervious areas. These increases in
stormwater runoff discharge speed and pollutant load are the challenge in stormwater manage
ment. If not managed, they can cause (1) flooding, (2) erosion, and (3) adverse effects on down
stream receiving waters (Figure 2).
Pervious and Impervious Areas at Airports

As illustrated in Figure 1, the amount of impervious area (i.e., paved areas) in relation to per
vious area (i.e., vegetated, non-compacted, unpaved areas) determines the volume and speed of
runoff from an airport. The proportion of impervious area can vary depending on the airport
location and size.
At airports, there is often a significant amount of pervious area, especially on the airfield (see
Figure 3). Airports can also have large amounts of impervious area (e.g., taxiways, aprons, and
parking lots). To some extent, runoff from impervious areas may be directed to drain to veg
etated areas before discharging to receiving waters; however, runoff from such areas is typically
directed to conventional stormwater collection systems.
Certain portions of an airport, such as landside parking lots and commercial areas, may
resemble commercial and business districts, which can have impervious cover of up to 85 per
cent (as noted in Table 1).
However, the percentage of impervious cover over the entire airport (including the airfield
and other airside land uses) may be substantially lower. For example, at the Georgetown (Texas)
1

2 Green Stormwater Infrastructure
Source: Jane Hawkey, Integration and Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
(http://ian.umces.edu/imagelibrary).
Figure 1. Runoff from impervious and pervious surfaces.
Municipal Airport, the percentage of impervious cover of the entire area is approximately
22 percent (City of Georgetown 2015; Figure 4). Similarly, in 2000, Dulles International Airport
had an overall percentage of impervious cover of 10 to 20 percent, even though it is a larger
airport (Dougherty et al. 2004). The percentage of impervious cover at some airports, such as
McCarran International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor Inter
national Airport, and San Diego International Airport, can be greater than 50 percent.
Source: Michael Baker International.
Figure 2. Damage from uncontrolled

stormwater runoff.

Introduction 3
Source: © 2016 Google Earth.
Figure 3. Airfield pervious areas at Austin Bergstrom

International Airport.
Table 1. Percentage of impervious cover by land use.
Information source: University of Delaware, Water Resources Agency, 1998;

USDA, Soil Conservation Service, TR-55, 1983.
Source: Delaware Sea Grant College Program (2005).
Source: © 2016 Google Earth.
Figure 4. Aerial view of Georgetown

Municipal Airport.

Table 2. Typical pollutant loads for airport land uses.*
Heavy
Land Use Sediment Nutrients Metals Bacteria Spills Notes
Runways and Low Medium High Unlikely Highly unlikely Metals from brake pad wear and
Taxiways rubber accumulation
Ramp Area Medium Medium Medium Low Likely Isolate to manage spills
Service Roads Low Medium Medium Unlikely Highly unlikely
Terminal and Low Medium Low Unlikely Highly unlikely Avoid metal structural materials
Other Buildings and cladding (e.g., metal roofs)
to keep metal concentrations low
Parking Lots Medium Medium Medium Unlikely Highly unlikely
Rental Car Centers Low Low Low Unlikely Unlikely, except
(quick turnaround in areas where
areas) fueling occurs
Fixed Base Medium Medium Medium Low Likely Isolate to manage spills
Operators
Maintenance Medium Medium Medium Low Likely Isolate to manage spills
Hangars
Outdoor Parking Medium Medium Medium Low Likely Isolate to manage spills
of GSE
*Based on the professional judgment of the authors.
Water Quality Characteristics of Stormwater Runoff from Airports

Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces at airports is often a source of water pollu
tion. The runoff from runways, ramp areas, and buildings potentially contains pollutants from
aircraft fuels, equipment cleaning agents, oil, and other fluids used in maintenance activities
(see Table 2). These pollutants can enter surrounding receiving waters (e.g., streams, lakes, and
marine systems), where degradation to water quality and aquatic life may occur.
History of Stormwater Regulations at Airports

Since its inception in 1990, airport and tenant activities have been subject to the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) industrial stormwater permitting program,
either under individual permits or under Multi-sector General Permits (MSGPs) as summarized
in Table 3. A majority of states have been delegated by the United States Environmental Protec
tion Agency (U.S. EPA) to manage the NPDES stormwater program. The state-managed pro
grams are often called State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System programs. Under these
programs, airports must implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan that includes
standard stormwater treatment best management practices (BMPs) and water quality moni
toring and reporting. Activities subject to the MSGP at airports include but are not limited
to (1) servicing, repairing, or maintaining aircraft and ground vehicles; (2) equipment cleaning
Table 3. Summary of stormwater permitting programs.
Resources for Stormwater Permitting Programs Applicability to Airports

NPDES MSGP Associated with Industrial Activity All airports [operating under standard industrial
https://www.epa.gov/npdes/final-2015-msgp-documents classification (SIC) codes 4512–4581].
NPDES Permits for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Airports discharging runoff to MS4s, or airports
https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-municipal- designated as MS4s.
sources#overview
NPDES Construction General Permit Airports with areas of construction of one acre
https://www.epa.gov/npdes/epas-2012-construction-general-permit- or more.
cgp-and-related-documents

Introduction 5
and maintenance (including vehicle and equipment rehabilitation, mechanical repairs, painting,
fueling, and lubrication); and (3) deicing/anti-icing operations.
Specific airports categorized as municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) can also be
permitted directly under the NPDES municipal stormwater permit program. Other airports are
subject to the MS4 requirements indirectly if their stormwater discharges to the municipal storm
sewer system. In addition, airports are subject to the NPDES stormwater construction program.
The construction program requires a stormwater pollution prevention plan that implements
construction BMPs and an erosion and sediment control plan.
On a local level, ordinances promulgated by municipalities and other local governments typi
cally regulate stormwater management to implement flood control measures. These ordinances
often incorporate state or federal requirements from the NPDES program. For example, in Los
Angeles, state and local regulations and ordinances, some of which were developed to comply
with the NPDES MS4 program, have forced Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to imple
ment a combination of conventional stormwater infrastructure and GSI programs to manage its
stormwater. Similarly, compliance with the state and federal regulations, as well as the influence
of local non-government organizations, prompted Seattle–Tacoma International Airport (SEA)
to implement GSI and to monitor effectiveness at NPDES outfalls.
Additional Resources
• ACRP Report 14: Deicing Planning Guidelines and Practices for Stormwater Management Sys-
tems, Chapter 2: Guidelines for Developing Integrated Deicing-Runoff Management Systems,
pages 5–10. CH2M HILL, Gresham, Smith and Partners, and Barnes & Thornburg LLP. 2009.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/
161758.aspx. This chapter describes Clean Water Act requirements, including the various
types of NPDES permits required by airports.
• Environmental Desk Reference for Airport Actions, Chapter 6: Construction Impacts and Chap
ter 20: Water Quality. FAA. 2007. http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/environmental_
desk_ref/.
• FedCenter.gov Stormwater web page for federal facility managers and their agencies: https://
www.fedcenter.gov/assistance/facilitytour/construction/stormwater/.
Two Approaches: Conventional Versus

Green Stormwater Infrastructure
There are two approaches to stormwater management: conventional (or gray) and green.
Conventional stormwater infrastructure relies on stormwater pipes and structures, mechani
cal equipment, and stormwater detention/retention ponds. Green stormwater infrastructure
maintains, mimics, or restores natural processes to manage stormwater as close as possible to
its point of origin.
The key difference between conventional stormwater infrastructure and GSI is the method by
which each moderates the increase in peak runoff created from paving or other development.
During the typical rain storm, the runoff increases during the storm to a peak and gradually
decreases until the storm ends. To prevent downstream flooding and erosion, both conventional
and GSI approaches ensure that the peak runoff does not increase (i.e., in comparison to the
pre-development runoff). The conventional approach, using a typical stormwater detention
pond, does not manage the volume and duration of the stormwater runoff (which have both
increased in comparison to pre-development conditions). The GSI BMP approach, on the other
hand, more closely replicates pre-development storm runoff by minimizing both the increase in
volume and the duration of the stormwater runoff.

Source: Francis (2010).
Figure 5. The spectrum of stormwater management infrastructure.
At many facilities, including airports, the best stormwater management system may be a com
bination of conventional stormwater infrastructure and GSI approaches. Figure 5 illustrates, at
the large scale of a watershed, the spectrum of management practices and their characteristics
across this spectrum.
Conventional Stormwater Management at Airports

The goals of conventional stormwater management and infrastructure at airports are (1) flood
management and erosion control and (2) water quality enhancement/pollution control.
Flood Management and Erosion Control

The proposed solution in most jurisdictions is to manage the stormwater runoff from the site
so that the post-development peak discharge is equivalent to the pre-development peak. This
solution is designed to prevent flooding and erosion but does not necessarily address the other
potential adverse effects on downstream receiving waters (i.e., negative impacts to aquatic life
from stormwater pollutants).
At airports, the infrastructure designed to attenuate the peak discharge is often one, or a series
of, detention/retention basin(s) located at the downstream end of a stormwater collection sys
tem before discharge to the receiving water, or at the property line (see Figure 6).
Water Quality Enhancement/Pollution Control

Preventing downstream adverse impacts by managing the pollutant load from a developed
site (in comparison to pre-development) can be addressed at the lower end of the drainage area
before discharge. This can be accomplished via stormwater wet ponds (which are designed to
remove sediments and associated nutrients), constructed wetlands, and proprietary manufac
tured treatment systems.
At airports, conventional deep wet ponds and proprietary systems can be used if their poten
tial as wildlife attractants is considered and mitigated as necessary. For example, a treatment
system to remove metals was installed downstream of conventional stormwater detention basins
at Seattle–Tacoma International Airport (Figure 7).

Introduction 7
Source: Port of Seattle (n.d.).
Figure 6. Concrete-lined detention basin

at Seattle–Tacoma International Airport.
Green Stormwater Infrastructure

Green stormwater infrastructure maintains, mimics, or restores natural hydrology to manage
and treat stormwater at or near its source. GSI can involve the use of various structural BMPs
such as bioswales, green roofs, constructed wetlands, or bioretention. These BMPs promote
infiltration and evapotranspiration, reducing runoff and reducing peak flows. Use of these BMPs
leads to improved water quality and reduces erosion and sedimentation. Table 4 summarizes
common GSI BMPs and their potential airport application.
Source: Port of Seattle (n.d.).
Figure 7. Proprietary stormwater treatment system

at Seattle–Tacoma International Airport.

Table 4. GSI BMP definitions.
GSI Definition
Bioretention Process consisting of shallow, vegetated basins that collect and absorb runoff from rooftops,
sidewalks, and streets. Mimics natural hydrology by infiltrating and evapotranspiring runoff.
Other common names: bioretention cells, rain gardens, biofiltration cells.
Green Roofs Rooftops covered with growing media and vegetation that enable rainfall infiltration and
evapotranspiration of stored water. Particularly cost effective in dense urban areas where land
values are high.
Harvesting and Process consisting of receptacles or tanks to collect and store rainfall for later use. Systems
Reuse include rain barrels, tanks, or cisterns.
Infiltration Gravel/rock-filled trench that receives stormwater runoff to encourage infiltration to
Galleries groundwater. Before entering the trench, stormwater runoff passes through some combination
of pretreatment measures, such as a bioswale and/or detention basin.
Porous Pavement Paved surfaces that infiltrate, treat, and/or store rainwater where it falls. May be constructed
from pervious concrete, porous asphalt, or permeable interlocking pavers, among several other
materials. Particularly cost effective where land values are high and where flooding or icing is a
problem.
Sand Filters Basins that capture stormwater runoff and then filter the runoff through a bed of sand in the
floor of the facility.
Filter Strips Vegetated areas with shallow slopes that are designed to treat runoff as overland sheet flow.
Bioswales Vegetated, mulched, or xeriscaped channels that provide treatment and retention as they
move stormwater from one place to another. Bioswales slow, infiltrate, and filter stormwater
flows. As linear features, bioswales are particularly suitable along streets and parking lots.
Wetland Treatment systems designed to improve water quality through natural processes involving
Treatment wetland vegetation, soils, and their associated microbial assemblages. Often less expensive
Systems to build than traditional wastewater treatment options, wetland treatment systems have low
operation and maintenance expenses.
Source: U.S. EPA (2015, 2013).

GSI Best Management Practices
Descriptions of GSI Best Management Practices

Bioretention
Bioretention (e.g., bioretention cells, rain gardens) normally consists of a filtration bed, pond-
ing area, organic or mulch layer, and plants. Bioretention BMPs function as soil-and-plant-based
filtration and infiltration devices that remove pollutants through a variety of physical, biological,
and chemical treatment processes. Bioretention systems can have a bottom liner where infiltra-
tion into the underlying soil is undesirable and may include underdrain pipes.
Performance
• Bioretention facilities generally have high pollutant removal. When selecting a media mix, be
aware that nutrients can leach from compost.
• Depending on the permeability of the underlying soil, 30 to 100 percent of runoff volume can
be infiltrated in an unlined bioretention system.
Potential Issues
• High sediment loads can lead to clogging of media, leading to ponding that could attract
hazardous wildlife.
• Vegetation can provide food, water, and shelter for hazardous wildlife.
• Areas with contaminant spill potential should avoid unlined systems to prevent groundwater
contamination.
Maintenance Requirements
• Remove trash and debris; replace mulch; prune or replace vegetation; maintain inflows, under-
drains, and outflow.
• Inspect after storms to ensure no standing water remains after 48 hours. Replace top mulch
layer and/or media as needed to fix ponding.
• Monitor wildlife use.
• Haze hazardous wildlife as needed. Install netting if hazardous wildlife use persists.
Airport Examples
• San Diego International Airport (SAN), Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport (MSP),
Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (CLE), SEA, and Austin–Bergstrom International
Airport (AUS) use bioretention systems.
9

Source: M. Barrett (© 2015).
Figure 8. Bioretention at Austin–Bergstrom

• AUS installed bioretention systems in the access road medians (Figure 8). They are attractive
to the public and are indistinguishable from conventional landscaping in both aesthetics and
general maintenance requirements.
• SEA uses a combination of bioretention/media filters outside of the airport operations area
(AOA) to treat discharge from upstream detention ponds.
• Massachusetts Low Impact Development Toolkit: Fact Sheet 4: Bioretention Areas. Metropol-
itan Area Planning Council. 2016. http://www.mapc.org/resources/low-impact-dev-toolkit/
bioretention-areas.
• Rain Gardens and Bioretention – What’s the Difference? Cascadia Consulting Group on
behalf of the Washington Department of Ecology. (Additional resources are included in this
white paper.) http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/LID/Resources/
LandscapersLIDarticle3.pdf.
• Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet: Bioretention. 1999. U.S. EPA. EPA 832-F-99-012. http://
nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/US-EPA-1999.pdf.
Green Roofs
Green roof design consists of a waterproof membrane supporting drainage and vegetated soil
layers as shown in Figure 9. Green roofs primarily provide volume reduction through absorption
and evapotranspiration of runoff. Green roofs also provide shade, increase insulation, absorb
airborne contaminants, and buffer noise.
Performance
• Green roofs are very effective volume control measures and can retain 25 to 90 percent of
precipitation.
• Green roofs exhibit limited pollutant removal via filtration; however, nutrients in soil may
leach back into the stormwater, resulting in a net decrease in water quality.

GSI Best Management Practices 11
Growth Media
SW Storage
Media
Insulation
(optional)
Water Proofing
Membranes
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality.
Figure 9. Typical green roof design.
Potential Issues
• Green roofs may not be suitable in hot and/or dry climates.
• Green roofs can attract hazardous wildlife or cause damage to aircraft from windblown plant
matter, both of which can be mitigated through careful design.
• Visually inspect and remove weeds every 2 to 4 weeks during the growing season.
• Fertilize annually for first 3 to 5 years, then as needed.
• Apply insecticide or vermicide as needed to decrease food source (worms and insects) for
wildlife.
• Trim vegetation every 2 to 3 years.
• Replace when underlying roof replaced (up to 40 years).
Airport Examples
• Chicago O’Hare International Airport:
– Green roofs on top of 12 buildings (over 300,000 ft2)
– Runoff volume retention of 25 to 90 percent depending on the season
• Others: MSP, CLE, Frankfurt International Airport (Germany), Airport Schiphol (Amster-
dam), and Airport Ibiza (Spain)
• Stormwater Management: Green Roofs. Website. State University of New York (SUNY) Col-
lege of Environmental Science and Forestry. http://www.esf.edu/ere/endreny/GICalculator/
GreenRoofsIntro.html.

• Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. Chapter 6: Structural BMPs,

BMP 6.5.1: Vegetated Roof. 2006. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Watershed Management. http://pecpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Stormwater-BMP-
Manual.pdf.
• Minnesota Stormwater Manual: Green Roofs. Website. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Green_roofs.
Harvesting and Reuse

Rainwater harvesting and reuse BMPs collect rainwater that can be recycled, decreasing
stormwater volume and providing an irrigation water supply. These BMPs typically do not pro-
vide treatment. Rather, they consist of a collection system draining to a cistern (Figure 10) or
underground detention facility where water is stored before use.
Performance
• Pollutant removal is minimal, as rainwater does not have high levels of pollutants.
• Rainwater harvesting systems have high volume reduction and reuse capacities. Volume is lost
via evapotranspiration when harvested water is used for irrigation or reused within buildings
for toilet flushing, cooling water, and other uses.
Potential Issues
• The harvesting system must not be accessible or serve as a water source to hazardous
wildlife.
• In many areas, collection of rainwater may be prohibited by water rights laws. Local
plumbing codes may also prohibit reuse or require pretreatment of harvested water.
• Periodically monitor to ensure that captured rainwater does not become anaerobic.
• If harvested water is treated prior to reuse, maintain the water quality treatment system.
• Clean gutters and downspouts.
Figure 10. Rainwater harvesting at AUS taxi

waiting area.

• Clean reservoir annually.

• Inspect and maintain to ensure system does not overflow, creating water pools.
Airport Examples
• Airports that have implemented or plan to implement rainwater harvesting systems include
AUS, Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL), CLE, MSP, and Gulfport–
Biloxi International Airport.
• AUS’s Ground Transportation Staging Area achieved LEED (Leadership in Energy and Envi-
ronmental Design) Gold status in part by installing a rainwater harvesting collection system.
• ATL has implemented multiple 2,500-gallon cisterns to supply water to planters on airport
property and one 25,000-gallon water reservoir at the international terminal to collect and
store roof runoff.
• Rainwater Harvesting: Conservation, Credit, Codes, and Cost Literature Review and Case Studies.
2013. U.S. EPA, EPA-841-R-13-002. https://www.epa.gov/npdes/rainwater-harvesting-
conservation-credit-codes-and-cost-literature-review-and-case-studies.
• Rainwater Harvesting: System Planning. J. Mechell, B. Kniffen, B. Lesikar, D. Kingman,
F. Jaber, R. Alexander, and B. Clayton. 2009. Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Texas A&M
University System. http://greywateraction.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Rainwater-
Harvesting-System-Practitioner-Manual.pdf.
Case Study: Oakland International Airport

Oakland International Airport (OAK) is vulnerable to flooding and inundation or liquefaction due to its location
on a bay fill, partially surrounded by San Francisco Bay. Controlling runoff, as well as achieving adequate water
quality in water discharged into the San Francisco Bay, has therefore become a major priority for the airport.
OAK has an advanced stormwater treatment system that diverts runoff from parking lots, roadways, and airport
buildings to grassy swales, detention basins, and landscape areas, allowing for increased infiltration and treatment
before the water is discharged. As part of a new roadway and civil work project, the airport installed bioswales
and a detention basin. Stormwater runoff from approximately 90 acres of impervious land is captured and
diverted to the bioswales. Almost 5 million gallons of water are treated during an average rainfall before being
channeled into San Francisco Bay. In March 2010, Terminal 2 at OAK became the first passenger terminal in the
United States to receive LEED Silver certification, achieved in part due to the airport’s system of bioswales.
Additional Information
• “OAK’s Terminal 2 Awarded LEED® Green Building Silver Certification.” Press release. http://www.
portofoakland.com/press-releases/press-release-194/.
• Adapting to Rising Tides: Vulnerability & Risk Assessment Report, Chapter 9: Airport. 2012. San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission. http://www.adaptingtorisingtides.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/12/Airport_VR.pdf
• Going Greener: Minimizing Airport Environmental Impacts. Airports Council International–North America.
http://aci-na.org/static/entransit/enviro_brochure.pdf.
• “Oakland International Airport Stormwater Management Plan.” Project description. Gresham Smith and
Partners. http://www.greshamsmith.com/projects/oakland-international-airport-stormwater-managemen.
• “The Future of Mobility: Greening the Airport.” C. Lyster. 2013. Places Journal. https://placesjournal.org/
article/the-future-of-mobility-greening-the-airport/.

Infiltration Galleries
Infiltration galleries are facilities that remove stormwater pollutants and decrease stormwater
volume via infiltration into the soil. There are multiple variations of these systems, including
shallow basins, rock-filled trenches, and underground end-of-pipe treatment.
Performance
• Infiltration systems may provide up to 100 percent reduction of pollutant discharge to surface
waters by infiltrating the entire design storm, filtering out contaminants.
• Infiltration galleries provide up to 100 percent reduction in the volume of runoff from the
design storm event, often about 1 inch of rainfall.
Potential Issues
• A high water table and low permeability soils can preclude the use of infiltration galleries.
They should also be avoided in areas with existing groundwater contamination.
• The infiltration of glycol is typically not allowed.
• Pretreatment is recommended to prevent clogging and resultant ponding.
• Routine maintenance includes removal of trash and debris on the surface.
Airport Examples
• Infiltration galleries are common at airports and can be found in SEA, LAX, SAN (Figure 11),
and many others.
• LAX is implementing a $30 million infiltration project that will help remove bacteria from the
runoff to protect nearby beaches.
• SAN implemented an artificial turf infiltration area to treat nearly 10 acres of paved area and
a design volume of approximately 18,000 cubic feet.
• Minnesota Stormwater Manual: Types of Infiltration Trenches. Website. Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Types_of_Infiltration_trench.
Source: J. Jolley (© 2015).
Figure 11. Artificial turf infiltration system at

San Diego International Airport.

• Stormwater Management: Infiltration Trenches. Website. SUNY College of Environmental

Science and Forestry. http://www.esf.edu/ere/endreny/GICalculator/InfiltrationIntro.html.
• Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, Chapter 6: Structural BMPs,
BMP 6.4.4: Infiltration Trench. 2006. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, Bureau of Watershed Management. http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/
Document-67992/6.4.4%20BMP%20Infiltration%20Trench.pdf.
• Stormwater Management Fact Sheet: Infiltration Trench. Stormwater Manager’s Resource
Center. http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Assorted%20Fact%20Sheets/Tool6_Stormwater_
Practices/Infiltration%20Practice/Infiltration%20Trench.htm.
Porous Pavement
Porous pavement consists of an asphalt or concrete surface containing voids that allow storm-
water to pass through to an underlying gravel base before infiltrating into the soil (Figure 12).
Treatment and volume reduction are provided via filtration and infiltration mechanisms.
Performance
• Limited data is available on pollutant concentration reduction.
• Up to 100 percent volume reduction is possible when located on permeable soils.
Potential Issues
• Load bearing capacity is a concern. Conventional porous pavement is not suitable for runways
or other surfaces with heavy vehicle or commercial airplane traffic.
• Contaminant spills (e.g., fuel or oils) may damage porous pavement and cause groundwater
contamination via infiltration. Do not use where spills can occur, such as loading docks, fuel-
ing areas (equipment and aircraft), and maintenance areas.
• Porous pavement is not suitable for deicing areas due to the potential for groundwater
contamination.
• Weeds can grow through the porous pavement.
Figure 12. Porous pavement at Los Angeles


Case Study: Stewart International Airport

Stewart International Airport (SWF) installed a 6-acre pervious asphalt pavement
parking lot in 2010. The intent of this project was to expand airport parking and
increase stormwater infiltration. The project cost was $9 million, and the project
was designed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Engineering
Department. SWF staff currently maintains the parking lot by periodic vacuuming.
Additional stormwater BMPs used at this site include bioswales, infiltration
trenches, a large void sub-base, and rain tanks.
Additional Information
• Stewart Airport Pervious Asphalt Pavement. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/73105.html.
• Case Study of the Sustainable Parking Facility at Stewart International Airport.
D. W. Louie, J. A. Calautti, and S. D. Murrell. 2011. First Congress of Transportation
and Development Institute. ASCE Library. http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/
41167(398)33.
• Perform periodic maintenance, such as sweeping, vacuum sweeping, and/or high-pressure
washing.
• Inspect for clogging annually and after large storms.
Airport Examples
• Porous pavement has been used at a many airports across the country, including LAX (largest
porous parking lot on the West Coast), SAN, Denver International Airport (DEN), ATL, and
Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT). It is typically well suited to use in parking lots and
service roads on both the land and airside.
• Stormwater Management: Permeable Pavement. Website. SUNY College of Environmen-
tal Science and Forestry. http://www.esf.edu/ere/endreny/GICalculator/PermaPaveIntro.
html.
BMP 6.4.1: Pervious Pavement with Infiltration Bed. 2006. Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Watershed Management. http://pecpa.org/wp-content/
uploads/Stormwater-BMP-Manual.pdf.
• Minnesota Stormwater Manual: Permeable Pavement. Website. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Permeable_pavement.
Sand Filters
Sand filters consist of basins that capture stormwater runoff and then filter the runoff through
a bed of sand. These BMPs can be configured as either a single basin or separate sedimentation
and filtration basins. Sand filters are very adaptable and can be used in areas with thin soils, high
evaporation rates, and low-soil infiltration. They can also be used in limited-space areas and in
places where groundwater requires protection.

Performance
• Sand filters remove particles and associated pollutants very well. Dissolved constituents are
not removed well. Nitrate can be present in the filter effluent.
• Volume removal is very high where underlying soils are very permeable.
Potential Issues
• Basins may not be used in the runway safety areas where they would be a hazard for aircraft.
• Sand filters are easily clogged by high sediment loads.
• Perform routine maintenance, including inspections, every quarter and after large storms
for the first year of operation and typically semi-annually thereafter to ensure water does not
pond for more than 48 hours.
• Remove trash and debris.
• Replace media (at the end of the 50-year filter life).
• Monitor the facility for vegetation growth and any hazardous wildlife.
Airport Examples
• AUS has numerous sand filters in active and non-active airport areas (Figure 13).
• SAN has constructed a number of high-rate media filters, which are similar to sand filters but
are augmented with compost, zeolite, and other materials to improve removal of dissolved
constituents.
• New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, Chapter 9: Structural Stormwater
Management Measures, 9.9: Sand Filters. 2014. New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection. http://www.njstormwater.org/bmp_manual/NJ_SWBMP_9.9.pdf.
• Stormwater Management: Sand Filters Basins. Website. SUNY College of Environmental
Science and Forestry. http://www.esf.edu/ere/endreny/GICalculator/SandFilterIntro.html.
Figure 13. Airside sand filter at Austin–Bergstrom


• Stormwater Management Fact Sheet: Sand and Organic Filter. Stormwater Manager’s
Resource Center. Website. http://www.stormwatercenter.net/.
Filter Strips
Filter strips, also known as vegetated filter strips, are mildly sloped vegetated surfaces that treat
runoff from adjacent impervious areas. These BMPs slow runoff velocities and remove pollut-
ants via filtration and infiltration.
Performance
• Filter strip systems perform well for solids and dissolved constituent removal. Bacteria removal
is typically small due to bacteria in the soil.
• Runoff volume retention depends on the underlying soil. Volume reduction can range from
50 percent to almost all runoff.
Potential Issues
Hazardous wildlife attraction to the strip vegetation is a concern. This issue can be minimized
by regular mowing to keep the grass short and using grass species, such as Zoysiagrass, centipede
grass, St. Augustine grass, and tall fescue, that are the least attractive to grass-eating wildlife
(Washburn and Seamans 2013).
• Mow as needed for safety and to reduce hazardous wildlife use.
• Remove any sediment buildup along the pavement edge that may channelize flow into the strip.
Airport Examples
• SEA and AUS use filter strips in the runways and taxiways to meet runoff permit requirements
(Figure 14).
• Runway safety areas (RSAs) naturally create the topography needed for a filter strip. RSA
requirements specify a stable, compacted, and graded area with a 3 to 5 percent traverse slope.
Figure 14. Filter strip at Austin–Bergstrom


RSAs range from 120 to 500 feet in width and 240 to 1,000 feet in length beyond the end of
the runway.
• Minnesota Stormwater Manual: Vegetated Filter Strips. Website. Minnesota Pollution Con-
trol Agency. http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Vegetated_filter_strips.
BMP 6.4.9 Vegetated Filter Strip. 2006. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, Bureau of Watershed Management. http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/View/
Collection-8305.
• Low Impact Development Fact Sheet: Vegetated Filter Strips. M. Cahill, D. Godwin, and
M. Sowles. 2011. Oregon State University. ORESU-G-11-003. http://extension.oregonstate.
edu/stormwater/sites/default/files/VegetatedFilterStrips.pdf.
Bioswales
A bioswale, or vegetated swale, is a shallow, open earthen channel with a vegetated base and
sides. Bioswales treat stormwater through filtration and infiltration.
Performance
• Bioswales exhibit moderate pollutant removal related to channel dimensions and vegetation.
Bacteria removal is typically small due to bacteria in the soil.
• Runoff volume retention depends on the underlying soil. Volume reduction can be substan-
tial for permeable soils.
Potential Issues
• Sediment accumulation can cause standing water. Bioswales must be properly maintained to
avoid the creation of a wildlife attractant.
• A moderate slope is required to convey runoff and prevent ponding.
• Remove trash, debris, and accumulated sediment.
• Mow regularly and maintain vegetation health.
• Maintain outfall wildlife exclusion devices.
Airport Examples
• Bioswales are widely used at airports including LAX, SEA (Figure 15), SAN, ATL, DEN, CLE,
and Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport.
• Bioswales are used along parts of the taxiway at LAX.
• SAN implemented bioswales near the car rental center. They infiltrate runoff from roof-
top and roadway surfaces. Vegetation consists of native, drought-tolerant vegetation that is
watered by the runoff.
• Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. Chapter 6: Structural BMPs,
BMP 6.4.8: Vegetated Swale. 2006. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Watershed Management. http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/View/
Collection-8305.

Figure 15. Bioswale at Seattle–

Tacoma International Airport.
• Minnesota Stormwater Manual: Permeable Pavement. Website. Minnesota Pollution Control

Agency. http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Permeable_pavement.
• Urban Street Design Guide. Bioswales. National Association of City Transportation Officials.
http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/stormwater-
management/bioswales/.
Wetland Treatment Systems

Wetland treatment systems, or engineered wetlands, are typically shallow basins that treat
stormwater through settling and biological processes (Figure 16). Multiple variations of this
BMP include wet detention ponds, wet retention ponds, and reticulated wetland treatment sys-
tems that have steep bank slopes and deep open water features.
Performance
Wetland treatment systems provide excellent nutrient removal through physical, chemical,
and biological water quality treatment of stormwater runoff. The example wetland system dia-
grammed in Figure 17 has a pool near the inlet to allow particulates to settle. The water then
follows a meandering path through the main wetland, promoting pollutant removal by keeping
water velocity slow and the residence time long.
Potential Issues
• Hazardous wildlife attraction is a concern and can be minimized by
– Designing steep banks and deep open water features without littoral zones.
– Covering open water with netting (SEA and MSP) or bird balls.

Figure 16. Full-scale treatment wetland.
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
Figure 17. Constructed wetland.

– Constructing subsurface wetlands with no accessible standing water.

– Covering with netting or wildlife fencing.
• Inspect before and after the wet season at a minimum. Inspect during a storm event if possible
to check proper function.
• Inspect and maintain wildlife exclusion devices.
• Haze hazardous wildlife that try to use the wetland treatment system.
• Rejuvenate system every 20 to 30 years by dredging and revegetating the cells (Miller et al. 2003).
Airport Examples
• Buffalo Niagara International Airport completed four discrete subsurface wetland cells in
2011. During the 2010/2011 deicing season, the treatment system removed an average of
98.3 percent of 5-day biochemical oxygen demand at a loading rate of up to 44,000 lb/day
(Wallace and Liner 2011).
BMP 6.6.1: Constructed Wetland. 2006. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, Bureau of Watershed Management. http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/View/
Collection-8305.
• Minnesota Stormwater Manual: Stormwater wetlands. Website. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Stormwater_wetlands.
• Stormwater Management Fact Sheet: Stormwater Wetland. Stormwater Manager’s Resource
Center. http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Assorted%20Fact%20Sheets/Tool6_Stormwater_
Practices/Wetland/Wetland.htm.
• Urban Small Sites Best Management Practice Manual. Constructed Wetlands: Stormwater Wet-
lands. (Saint Paul, Minnesota) Metropolitan Council. http://www.sswm.info/sites/default/
files/reference_attachments/METROCOUNCIL%20ny%20Stormwater%20Wetlands.pdf.
Hybrid Stormwater Management

Hybrid stormwater management is the mix of conventional stormwater infrastructure and
green stormwater infrastructure. Hybrid management may benefit airports by removing pol-
lutants from water while providing conveyance and flood protection. Potential benefits include
reduced infrastructure costs, reduced runoff volume, and groundwater recharge via infiltration.
Airport Examples
• SEA uses conventional detention basins to reduce flows followed by end-of-pipe enhanced
bioswales that remove nutrients.
• End-of-pipe GSI allows stormwater treatment in non-active areas of the airport, decreasing
hazardous wildlife attractant issues in the active area.
Selection of GSI Best Management Practices

GSI BMP selection depends on numerous factors, including land use, required level of pollutant
removal, maintenance access requirements, and potential safety constraints. The following selec-
tion matrices present BMPs recommended for landside (Table 5), airside (Table 6), and either
landside or airside (Table 7) airport land use. Each BMP was described in the previous section.

Table 5. Landside GSI BMP selection matrix.
Effort Expected Regulatory Issues to Address

Potentially Hydrology and Other
Airport Area Climate Required for Maintenance During Design
Suitable GSI Site Considerations
Maintenance Activities
Commercial All climates Bioretention Sediment loads not Moderate T, M, V, St Potential wildlife attractant
Buildings excessive
(Landside) Infiltration Water table not too Low to T None
Galleries shallow, permeable soils, moderate
no underlying
groundwater or soil
contamination
Sand Filters Sediment loads that are Low to T, M Potential wildlife attractant if
not excessive moderate standing water persists
More than 12 Bioswales Slope adequate to avoid Low T, Sed, V Potential wildlife attractant when
inches of standing water there is standing water
rain/year
Wet climates Wetland High water table or wet Low to V Potential wildlife attractant
Treatment climate moderate
Systems
Parking Lot All climates Bioretention Sediment loads not Moderate T, M, V, St Potential wildlife attractant
(Landside) excessive
Infiltration Water table not too Low to T None
no underlying
groundwater or soil
contamination
Porous Sediment loads not Moderate to Sed, St, V Load capacity
Pavement excessive high
Sand Filters Sediment loads not Low to T, M Potential wildlife attractant if
excessive moderate standing water persists
More than 12 Bioswales Slope adequate to avoid Low T, Sed, V Acceptable within runway safety
inches of standing water and taxiway safety areas if slope
rain/year meets FAA safety area
requirements, potential wildlife
attractant when there is standing
water
Systems
Terminals All climates Bioretention Sediment loads not Moderate T, M, V, St Potential wildlife attractant
(Landside excessive
portion) Harvesting None Moderate to Sed, St, V Potential wildlife attractant, local
and Reuse high plumbing codes, and water
rights laws
Infiltration Water table not too Low to T None
no underlying
groundwater or soil
contamination
Not arid or Green Roofs Relatively flat roof Moderate V Potential wildlife attractant
excessively
hot
More than 12 Bioswales Slope adequate to avoid Low T, Sed, V Acceptable within runway safety
inches of standing water and taxiway safety areas if slope
rain/year meets FAA safety area
attractant when there is standing
water
Wet climates Wetland High water table or wet Low to V Potential creation of a wildlife
Treatment climate moderate attractant
Systems
V = Vegetation – all forms of vegetation maintenance, including replacement, pruning, and mowing
M = Media – replacement or other maintenance of media such as mulch, soil, and sand
T = Trash – removal of trash
St = Structural – maintenance of inflows, drains, outlets, and gutters
Sed = Sediment – management of sediment via vacuuming or sweeping, or removal of accumulated sediment

Table 6. Airside GSI BMP selection matrix.
Expected
Potentially Hydrology and Other Effort Required for Regulatory Issues to
Airport Area Climate Maintenance
Suitable GSI Site Considerations Maintenance Address During Design
Activities
Parking All climates Infiltration Water table not too Low to moderate T None
Areas Galleries shallow, permeable soils,
(Airside) no underlying
groundwater or soil
contamination
Sand Filters Sediment loads not Low to moderate T, M Potential wildlife attractant if
excessive standing water persists
More than Bioswales Slope adequate to avoid Low T, Sed, V Acceptable within runway safety
12 inches of standing water and taxiway safety areas if
rain/year slope meets FAA safety area
attractant when there is
standing water
All but the Filter Strips None Low V Potential wildlife attractant,
driest mowing height dictated by FAA
climates regulations
Ramp/Apron All climates Infiltration Water table not too Low to moderate T None
(Airside) Galleries shallow, permeable soils,
no underlying
groundwater or soil
contamination
Runways More than Bioswales Slope adequate to avoid Low T, Sed, V Acceptable within runway
(Airside) 12 inches of standing water safety and taxiway safety areas
rain/year if slope meets FAA safety area
requirements. Potential wildlife
standing water.
Taxiways More than Bioswales Slope adequate to avoid Low T, Sed, V Acceptable within runway
(Airside) 12 inches of standing water safety and taxiway safety areas
rain/year if slope meets FAA safety area
standing water

Table 7. Airside or landside GSI BMP selection matrix.
Effort Expected
Potentially Hydrology and Other Regulatory Issues to
Airport Area Climate Required for Maintenance
Suitable GSI Site Considerations Address During Design
Maintenance Activities
Facility Not arid or Green Roofs Relatively flat roof Moderate V Potential wildlife attractant
Buildings excessively
(Landside or hot
airside) All climates Harvesting and None Moderate to Sed, St, V Potential wildlife attractant,
Reuse high local plumbing codes, water
rights laws
Roadways All climates Bioretention Sediment loads not Moderate T, M, V, St Potential wildlife attractant
(Landside or excessive
airside) Infiltration Water table not too Low to T None
Galleries shallow, permeable moderate
soils, no underlying
groundwater or soil
contamination
Porous Sediment loads not Moderate to Sed, St, V Load capacity
Pavement excessive high
More than 12 Bioswales Slope adequate to avoid Low T, Sed, V Acceptable within runway
inches of standing water safety and taxiway safety
rain/year areas if slope meets FAA
safety area requirements,
potential wildlife attractant
when there is standing water
driest climates mowing height dictated by
FAA regulations
Systems
St = Structural – maintenance of inflows, drains, outlets, and gutters

Benefits of Green Stormwater

Infrastructure
GSI strategies can provide effective stormwater management and deliver a variety of aesthetic
and economic benefits to airports, including the following:
• Environmental—water quality, aquifer recharge, landscape aesthetics, streambank protection,
flood mitigation, and successful compliance with the federal Clean Water Act
• Economic—potentially lower capital and operation and maintenance costs for stormwater
infrastructure, and reduction in facility energy and other operation costs
• Social—demonstration of stewardship to communities and stakeholders
• Land use—efficient use valuable property by replacing conventional landscapings
Potential Cost Savings

GSI can reduce operating costs if the stormwater is collected and reused, and may be more
cost effective than conventional infrastructure over the long term.
Case studies, such as the following, have shown that the cost of construction and installation
of GSI may be 15 to 45 percent less than the cost of conventional stormwater infrastructure (U.S.
EPA 2007):
• Runoff treatment: The GSI installed at a New Hampshire shopping center, which can be
compared to GSI landside applications at airports, saved an estimated 26 percent of the
total cost for stormwater management. The $930,000 savings resulted from avoidance of
the costs of piping and earthwork associated with the installation of a conventional infra-
structure stormwater management system [University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center
(UNHSC) 2012].
• Flood control: Better management of peak runoff during extreme weather events can reduce
property damage incurred by floods (Minkel 2009; Francis 2010). Compared to traditional
road and drainage design, swales along roads can attain the same runoff volume reduction
goals more cost effectively (City of Seattle, n.d.).
According to U.S. EPA, “these savings derive from lower costs for site grading, paving, and
landscaping, and smaller or eliminated piping and detention facilities” (U.S. EPA 2012).
• The Center for Neighborhood Technology (http://www.cnt.org/) provides guidance on mea-
suring and valuing the benefits of GSI for estimating annual monetary savings.
• The Green Values® National Stormwater Management Calculator (http://greenvalues.cnt.
org/national/calculator.php) compares performance, costs, and benefits of GSI with conven-
tional BMPs.
26

Benefits of Green Stormwater Infrastructure 27
• Post-Project Monitoring of BMPs/SUDS to Determine Performance and Whole-Life Costs.

2004. L. Lampe. Final report prepared for the Water Environment Research Foundation.
WERF Report 01-CTS-21T. London, UK: IWA Publishing: http://www.iwapublishing.com/
books/9781843397168/post-project-monitoring-bmpssuds-determine-performance-and-
whole-life-costs.
Operation and Maintenance Costs

GSI strategies for stormwater management are expected to entail lower capital and operation
and maintenance costs for the airport [City of Chicago and Chicago Department of Aviation
(CDA) 2012, City of Chicago 2014]. As explained in Banking on Green, “Properly functioning
green infrastructure practices are premised on using natural processes rather than built systems,
which requires a shift away from capital-intensive, infrequent maintenance to less-invasive tasks
that may be more frequent but less expensive overall” (American Rivers et al. 2012).
The cost of the operation and maintenance of GSI BMPs can be estimated using a variety
of tools as noted in the Additional Resources section below. These estimates are often based
on a combination of data from actual operations and standard cost-estimating tools (e.g., RS
Means), and are, by their nature, dependent on regional labor and material rates. For example,
Table 8 shows unit costs for estimating BMP maintenance costs developed by the Urban Drain-
age and Flood Control District (UDFCD) in Denver, Colorado (costs shown are for illustrative
purposes only).
• 2012 Biennial Report, pp. 28–29. 2012. UNHSC. http://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh.edu.
unhsc/files/docs/UNHSC.2012Report.10.10.12.pdf.
• Best Management Practices and Low Impact Development Whole Life Cost Models: Version 2.0.
2009. Water Environment & Reuse Foundation. http://www.werf.org/bmpcost.
• BMP sizing tool and BMP-REALCOST (Rational Estimation of Actual Likely Costs of Storm-
water Treatment) software. 2013. UDFCD. http://udfcd.org/software.
Table 8. Example table of BMP maintenance unit costs developed for an effectiveness
and cost analysis model.
Source: UDFCD (2013).

Volume Reduction
Reducing the volume of runoff using the GSI approach potentially reduces the costs associ-
ated with a completely conventional infrastructure approach by minimizing the construction,
installation, and maintenance of stormwater pipes and outfalls, as well as the energy costs associ-
ated with pumping the runoff to the discharge location or a treatment plant.
Reduction of Energy Costs

By promoting infiltration of stormwater on-site, GSI reduces the amount of water that needs
to be conveyed off-site. This, in turn, minimizes the energy costs associated with transporting
stormwater via piping and pumps to a discharge location. Further, reusing collected stormwater
on-site can yield significant savings in water use and associated energy consumption (Natural
Resources Defense Council 2009). Green roofs may further reduce heating and cooling costs by
providing added insulation in the summer and winter. At a larger scale, GSI appears to signifi-
cantly reduce the urban heat island effect (Clark et al. 2010).
Green roofs and other vegetated land covers can absorb heat and mitigate the heat island effect
at airports (Velazquez 2005, Center for Neighborhood Technology 2010). As such, green roofs
can provide an estimated 10 percent reduction in air conditioning costs. Because they protect
the roof from mechanical damage, ultraviolet rays, and hail/extreme temperatures, green roofs
can also increase the life of a standard roof two- or three-fold (City of Chicago 2003).
Reduction of Flooding Damage

GSI reduces the volume of stormwater runoff by reusing, infiltrating, and retaining storm-
water where precipitation accumulates. The result is reduced peak runoff flow, thereby mini-
mizing flood damage (such as in Figure 18) due to swollen downstream rivers and streams.
Conventional retention/detention basins, though not considered GSI, also reduce peak flows
and prevent downstream flooding. When applied at the scale of an entire community, imple-
mentation of GSI can substantially reduce the risk of flooding.
Figure 18. Damage from flooding.

Benefits of Green Stormwater Infrastructure 29
Better management of peak runoff during extreme weather events can reduce property dam-
age incurred by flooding.
Protection of Water Quality

GSI reduces pollutant loads in stormwater runoff through natural filtration by ground vegeta-
tion and other natural mechanisms. This reduction in pollutants benefits downstream receiving
waters, nearby residential communities, and the environment. The reduction in thermal loads,
nutrients, and suspended solids entering local streams, ponds, and wetlands can be significant.
Preservation of local water bodies provides increased habitat for aquatic species. Specifically, GSI
protects water quality in the following ways:
• Runoff from impervious surfaces (e.g., streets, roofs, and parking lots) is a major source of
water pollution. GSI practices that replicate natural hydrology, such as wetland treatment
systems, bioswales, and bioretention basins, serve as filtration systems that treat stormwater
before discharging to nearby surface waters or eliminate stormwater by discharging to ground-
water systems (Oregon State University et al. 2006, Taylor et al. 2014).
• Plants and soils provide biofiltration of pollutants from impervious surfaces without the need
for costly pipe maintenance and wastewater treatment (City of Seattle, n.d.).
• Reducing runoff helps to maintain more consistent stream flows and to minimize tempera-
ture fluctuations that can threaten aquatic habitats (Francis 2010).
• Permeable pavement at a New Hampshire shopping center parking lot resulted in a 60 percent
reduction in total suspended solids and an 84 percent reduction in total phosphorus found
in runoff (UNHSC 2012).
• In contrast to gray infrastructure, GSI is designed such that water can infiltrate into soils and
percolate to the water table, providing recharge for surficial aquifers (Center for Neighbor-
hood Technology 2010).
The indirect benefits of clean water for public health can be difficult to quantify—particularly
the mental health benefits of access to recreational opportunities and open spaces—but they are
substantial and observable. Studies by the University of Illinois Landscape and Human Health
Laboratory (http://lhhl.illinois.edu/all.scientific.articles.htm; accessed January 2015) have shown
that trees and other types of vegetation positively impact well-being and mental health.
Stewardship and Aesthetics

Airports implementing GSI exhibit stewardship in their communities. Research indicates that
communities and other stakeholders look favorably on the forward-thinking approach to GSI
(American Rivers et al. 2012). The Chicago Department of Aviation considers the vegetated green
roofs installed on top of 12 facilities at O’Hare International Airport an initiative that makes their
“commitment to the environment very visible” (CDA 2015).
Installing GSI typically yields the non-monetized benefit of goodwill from the nearby com-
munity as well as from regulators. The aesthetics of “green” fields and plant growth offer pleasant
views for neighbors and recreational opportunities for hikers and strollers.
Further, GSI offers a natural aesthetic by minimizing the use of outfall structures. Conventional
infrastructure collects and discharges stormwater via an outfall structure, which conspicuously
discharges stormwater into the local water body. The GSI approach naturally filters runoff (by
removing certain pollutants and dispersing stormwater).

Applicability to Airports
Typical Airport Land Uses

Airside Land Uses
Airside land uses where GSI may be applied include taxiways and runways, as well as areas
where significant aircraft activities occur and possibly areas where there is ongoing construction.
Airside land uses may include the following:
• Apron/ramp and flight operations
• Maintenance areas (hangars, garages, outdoor parking)
• Fueling operations (fuel farms, parking for tankers, etc.)
• Runways and taxiways
• Dedicated deicing area or apron deicing areas
• Aircraft washing racks
Landside Land Use

Landside areas of the airport where GSI may be applied include terminals and will be subject
to many of the same runoff pollution issues as properties outside of the airport setting (e.g.,
parking lots and landscaped areas associated with commercial or residential areas). Landside
land uses include the following:
• Parking garages, parking lots, and roadways
• Vehicle washes
• Vehicle fueling stations
• Landscaped areas
• Construction areas
• Solid waste collection/food waste
• On-site commercial properties (e.g., car rental)
• Miscellaneous material storage areas.
Pollutants in Runoff as Related to Airports

Stormwater from airport impervious areas is often typically contaminated with pollutants
similar to urban land uses:
• Impervious pavements (e.g., total suspended solids, oil and grease, some nutrients, and
heavy metals)
• Roof runoff (e.g., copper, and zinc)
• Landscaped areas (e.g., nutrients, pesticides, and herbicides)
30

Applicability to Airports 31
For literature on pollutants in urban runoff, see the following:

• Urban Stormwater Quality: Summary of Contaminant Data. D. K. Makepeace, D. W.
Smith, and S. J. Stanley. 1995. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology
25 (2): 93–139.
• NCHRP Report 565: Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff Control.
Oregon State University, Geosyntec Consultants, University of Florida, and The Low Impact
Development Center, Inc. 2006. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Some land uses are particular to airports and bring their own concerns related to pollutants
in runoff:
• Deicing/anti-icing areas (e.g., ethylene glycol and propylene glycol);
runoff containing these chemicals may be managed separately at
airports. Water Quality Issues
• Aprons, fueling, and maintenance areas (e.g., oil and grease, total
hydrocarbons, lavatory wastes, paint). Although many pollutants in runoff
will be generally similar among airports
For recent research on runoff
. in airports, see: Pollutants in Airport (and often similar to other urban and
Runoff Waters. A. M. Sulej, Z. Polkowska, and J. Namieśnik. 2012. commercial land uses), constituents of
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 42(16): concern can vary among airports. There
1691–1734. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241682540_ may also be particular regional water
Pollutants_in_Airport_Runoff_Waters quality concerns to address in storm
water management, either through GSI or
through conventional stormwater BMPs.
Applicability of General Airports that experience colder weather
GSI Guidance Manuals cite deicing fluids as a major pollutant of
Airports generally have administrative and regulatory control of a facil- concern, and some airports employ man
ity with a number of land uses where GSI may be applied, either above agement strategies specifically to handle
ground or below ground. A major factor in determining GSI implemen- runoff containing these chemicals.
tation and management is whether the proposed GSI will be located
on the airside or landside. Application of GSI to some parts of airport
property (landside areas, on-site commercial areas, car rental locations,
parking lots, etc.) may not differ substantially from application to non- Strategies to Avoid Creating
airport commercial settings (e.g., shopping malls, city landscapes), with Wildlife Attractants
the exception of hazardous wildlife concerns. In these areas outside of the
AOA, other GSI guidance documents may prove valuable for airports. • Ensure stormwater detention ponds
drain between storms.
Airport property on the airside has a much greater wildlife hazard • Use bird balls, wire grids, pillows,
concern, and guidance from existing GSI documents may need to be wildlife fencing, and/or netting to
thoroughly considered or modified to ensure that the GSI will not deter wildlife.
attract wildlife. • Design steep-sided, linear stormwater
detention systems.
• Locate ponds away from the AOA.
Avoiding the Creation • Install grates or other exclusion
of Wildlife Attractants devices on all outfalls to prevent
Very limited use of GSI on the airside is recommended, especially wildlife access.
• Remove vegetation in and around
within the AOA where GSI has the potential to attract hazardous wild-
life or can create hazardous wildlife habitat. Both on the landside and ponds.
• Use stormwater infiltration systems
off airport property, there are few constraints to GSI implementation,
provided the GSI does not become a wildlife attractant that has a high when possible.
potential to impact safe aircraft operation at the airport.

Vegetation promotes stormwater infiltration and treatment but may also attract hazard-
ous wildlife and/or create wildlife habitat. This potentially conflicts with FAA advisories
to manage hazardous wildlife and wildlife habitats at airport facilities (DeVault and
Washburn 2013).
• Water and wetland management for hazardous wildlife at general aviation airports: ACRP
Report 32: Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports,
pages 38–44. E. C. Cleary and A. Dickey. 2010. Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/163690.aspx.
• Bird Strike Risk Analysis and Stormwater Management Decision Tool: Software accompany-
ing ACRP Report 125: Balancing Airport Stormwater and Bird Hazard Management. K. Allerton,
A. Johnson, J. Lengel, M. Knecht, D. Seal, P. Esposito, and G. Griffin. 2015. Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/163690.
aspx.
• Exclusion methods to provide perceived or actual barriers to bird use: ACRP Synthesis of
Airport Practice 23: Bird Harassment, Repellent, and Deterrent Techniques for Use on and Near
Airports, pages 17 and 18. J. L. Belant and J. A. Martin. 2011. Transportation Research Board
of the National Academies. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/165829.aspx.
• Habitat management for wildlife deterrence: ACRP Synthesis of Airport Practice 52: Habi-
tat Management to Deter Wildlife at Airports, Chapter 2: Airfield Turf and Chapter 8: Water
Resources. J. L. Belant and C. R. Ayers. 2014. Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/170766.aspx.
• FAA Wildlife Hazard Mitigation: https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/.
The following wildlife hazard management measures and tools have proven effective at many
airports:
• Exclusion devices (see ACRP Synthesis 23), including the use of bird balls (Figure 19)
• Repelling techniques, including the use of Mylar tape (Figure 20)
• Active dispersal methods
• Biological/mechanical/chemical controls
• Lethal control
• Wildlife population management
Source: Michael Baker International (© 2016).
Figure 19. Pond with bird balls at Northeast Ohio

Regional Airport.

Applicability to Airports 33
Figure 20. Pond with fishing line and Mylar tape at

Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport.
• Habitat modification—makes the habitat undesirable for wildlife use

• Inspections—ensure GSI is functioning properly and not forming a wildlife attractant
• Aquatic weed control and management—prevents food and habitat creation for hazardous
wildlife (see ACRP Synthesis 52, Chapters 2 and 8)
• Integrated pest management—prevents creation of food source for hazardous wildlife
• Turf and vegetation management—prevents GSI vegetation from attracting hazardous
wildlife (see ACRP Synthesis 52, Chapters 2 and 8)
• Stormwater management—prevents ponded water that could attract hazardous wildlife or
uses very dense vegetation to make wildlife access difficult
• Waste management—dispose of waste in a way that prevents the formation of a hazardous
wildlife attractant
• Proper operation and maintenance—maintain GSI to prevent ponding or tall vegetation (see
ACRP Report 32)
• Education and training—teach proper maintenance and monitoring
• Monitoring of GSI—quickly catch the creation of potential wildlife attractants such as tall
vegetation or ponding

Challenges and Constraints

Associated with Green Stormwater
Infrastructure at Airports
Legal and Policy Constraints
The FAA Advisory Circulars referenced in this section should be consulted for specific design
requirements that will influence the use of GSI on landside and airside operations. All FAA circulars
are available online (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/). Care should be
taken to access the most current version, because FAA Advisory Circulars are updated frequently.
GSI integration in airport design must accommodate the planning and design guidelines
described in FAA Advisory Circulars 150/5360-13, Planning and Design Guidelines for Airport
Terminal Facilities, and 150/5300-13A, Airport Design. The designer must generally be concerned
with clearance guidelines for aircraft and logistic and operational requirements around airside
facilities.
Early planning during airport design can accommodate FAA guidelines and enhance airport
operation. For example, GSI may be a useful tool for landside parking areas that must be buff-
ered from the terminal building. Other general restrictions that must be observed for GSI at
airports include the following:
• Curbs and gutters must not interrupt surface runoff along a taxiway or runway.
• GSI must maintain drainage criteria for spread and ponding as identified in the FAA Advisory
Circular 150/5320-5D, Airport Drainage Design.
• GSI must accommodate clearance requirements for aircraft and support vehicles on airside
operations.
The FAA guidance documents also recommend standards and practices for hazardous wildlife
management on or near airports:
• 14 CFR § 139.337, Wildlife hazard management, mandates implementation of airport wildlife
hazard measures contained in FAA Advisory Circulars
• 14 CFR § 139.337 (f), Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Checklist
• FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports
• CertAlert 98-05, Grasses Attractive to Hazardous Wildlife
• Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A Manual for Airport Personnel (Cleary and Dolbeer
2005)
• FAA Wildlife Hazard Mitigation web page (https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/)
GSI has historically not been included in areas around airside terminal buildings, because
it competes for space with operations and equipment storage and parking. Advance planning
can overcome these obstacles and accommodate multiple uses in active areas, such as near the
apron and ramp. Retrofit of GSI in these areas may require more study, because surplus space
will likely be at a premium.
34

Challenges and Constraints Associated with Green Stormwater Infrastructure at Airports 35
Retrofit Costs
• The cost of retrofitting existing infrastructure is greater than constructing GSI with new con-
struction. Taylor et al. (2014) notes that retrofit costs for GSI can be as much as 10 times the
cost of GSI installation with new construction. Accordingly, GSI should be planned along
with other airport infrastructure improvement projects whenever possible.
• GSI retrofit projects may be required where the facility must comply with total maximum
daily load requirements, or as a part of reconstruction of existing impervious surfaces.
Familiarity with GSI at Airports

Conventional BMPs listed in stormwater management manuals often
focus on new development and use a design and review system that has Typical airport divisions that are involved
evolved over a number of years. Airport regulatory compliance experts, in stormwater management projects
stormwater practitioners, and regulators are familiar with those pro- include environmental (permitting
cesses. Because introducing new approaches to stormwater manage- and water quality), design (airfield
ment can be challenging and resource intensive, practitioners may use engineering and landscape architec-
more familiar approaches to meet critical schedules. Furthermore, sev- ture), maintenance (including land-
eral different airport divisions can be involved in stormwater manage- scape), construction, and capital
ment, which may also present challenges when trying to introduce new project management.
approaches.
Maintenance and Evaluation

Maintenance and continued re-evaluation are often key to performance, especially where
there may be wildlife hazards (Figure 21). FAA Advisory Circular 150/5320-5D, Airport Drainage
Design, describes GSI practices for airport environments.
It is recommended that maintenance guidance be provided for all GSI projects so as to familiar-
ize all maintenance and operations personnel with GSI operation. Though maintenance informa-
tion and long-term operation information for GSI at airports is lacking, guidance for non-airport
GSI is plentiful. Figure 22 shows a poorly maintained, overgrown detention basin, whereas Fig-
ure 23 depicts a well-maintained bioswale.
Figure 21. Weeds in porous pavement attracting

birds.

Figure 22. Overgrown detention basin.
Guidance on the maintenance of GSI (including porous pavement) in urban/suburban land-
scape is provided in the 2009 Seattle Public Utilities Manual. http://www.seattle.gov/util/cs/
groups/public/@spu/@usm/documents/webcontent/spu02_020023.pdf.
Evaluation of Effectiveness
Stormwater BMP effectiveness for water quality improvement is often variable among pol-
lutants and among BMPs. It can also be highly variable within a BMP type depending upon site
characteristics, BMP design, and pollutant loadings. Methods for evaluating BMP effectiveness
and results of performance studies are areas of ongoing work.
Source: Seattle Public Utilities.
Figure 23. Well-maintained bioswale.

Challenges and Constraints Associated with Green Stormwater Infrastructure at Airports 37
• NCHRP reports (Oregon State University et al. 2006, Taylor et al. 2014, and Geosyntec Consul-
tants et al. 2011) on controlling highway runoff via BMP installation include in-depth reviews
of the various methodologies in which BMP effectiveness and efficiency may be evaluated.
• Performance of Green Infrastructure. Website. U.S. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/green-
infrastructure/performance-green-infrastructure.
• International Stormwater BMP Database (http://www.bmpdatabase.org/) and 2014 Per-
formance Summary. http://www.bmpdatabase.org/Docs/2014%20Water%20Quality%20
Analysis%20Addendum/BMP%20Database%20Categorical_StatisticalSummaryReport_
December2014.pdf.
• National Pollutant Removal Performance Database, Version 3. 2007. Center for Watershed Pro-
tection. http://www.stormwaterok.net/CWP%20Documents/CWP-07%20Natl%20Pollutant
%20Removal%20Perform%20Database.pdf
• Illinois Green Infrastructure Study. 2010. Chapter II: The Effectiveness of Green Infrastructure.
M. Jaffe, M. Zellner, E. Minor, M. Gonzalez-Meler, L. B. Cotner, D. Massey, H. Ahmed,
M. Elberts, H. Sprague, S. Wise, and B. Miller. http://www.epa.state.il.us/green-infrastructure/
docs/draft-final-report.pdf.
• Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Control: Gauging Its Effectiveness with Community Part-
ners. 2015. U.S. EPA. EPA/600/R-15/219. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=
P100NE3S.txt.
• 2012 Biennial Report, pp. 10–27. 2012. UNHSC. http://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh.edu.
unhsc/files/docs/UNHSC.2012Report.10.10.12.pdf.

References
American Rivers, Water Environment Federation, American Society of Landscape Architects, and ECONorth-
west. 2012. Banking on Green: A Look at How Green Infrastructure Can Save Municipalities Money and Pro-
vide Economic Benefits Community-wide. https://s3.amazonaws.com/american-rivers-website/wp-content/
uploads/2017/03/06142720/banking-on-green-report.pdf.
Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2010. The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to Recognizing Its Eco-
nomic, Environmental and Social Benefits. http://www.cnt.org/sites/default/files/publications/CNT_Value-
of-Green-Infrastructure.pdf.
Chicago Department of Aviation (CDA). 2015. Chicago O’Hare Vegetated Green Roof Inventory. http://www.
flychicago.com/OHare/EN/AboutUs/Sustainability/Vegetated-Roofs.aspx (As of December 4, 2016).
City of Chicago. 2014. City of Chicago Green Stormwater Infrastructure Strategy. https://www.cityofchicago.org/
content/dam/city/progs/env/ChicagoGreenStormwaterInfrastructureStrategy.pdf.
City of Chicago and the Chicago Department of Aviation (CDA). 2012. Making our Airports Aspirational: A Sus-
tainable Path. http://glslcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Aviation_sustainabilityplan_Chicago.pdf.
City of Chicago. 2003. City of Chicago O’Hare Modernization Program: Sustainable Design Manual.
City of Georgetown. 2015. Georgetown Municipal Airport PUD Development Plan. https://airport.georgetown.
org/files/2015/08/Airport-PUD.pdf.
City of Seattle. n.d. Seattle’s Natural Drainage Systems.
Clark, C., B. Busiek, and P. Adriaens. 2010. “Quantifying Thermal Impacts of Green Infrastructure: Review and
Gaps.” Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation Cities of the Future/Urban River Restoration 2010
Conferences, pp. 69–77. http://www.limno.com/pdfs/2010_Busiek_URRC_CotF.pdf.
Cleary, E. C., and R. A. Dolbeer. 2005. Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A Manual for Airport Personnel.
Second Edition. Federal Aviation Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.faa.gov/
airports/airport_safety/wildlife/resources/media/2005_FAA_Manual_complete.pdf.
Delaware Sea Grant College Program. 2005. Chapter 2: Impervious Cover. Delaware NEMO Guide to Natural
Resource-Based Planning. University of Delaware. http://nemo.udel.edu/manual.aspx.
DeVault, T. L., and B. E. Washburn. 2013. “Identification and Management of Wildlife Food Resources at Air-
ports” In: T. L. DeVault, B. F. Blackwell, and J. L. Belant, editors. Wildlife in Airport Environments: Prevent-
ing Animal–Aircraft Collisions through Science-Based Management. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
pp. 79–90. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/1462.
Dougherty, M., R. L. Dymond, S. J. Goetz, C. A. Jantz, and N. Goulet. 2004. “Evaluation of Impervious Sur-
face Estimates in Rapidly Developing Watersheds.” Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, Vol. 70,
No. 11, pp. 1275–1284. http://whrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/DoughertyetalPhoEngRS.04.pdf.
Francis, S. E. 2010. Gray to Green: Jumpstarting Private Investment in Green Stormwater Infrastructure. Sustain-
able Business Network of Greater Philadelphia. http://www.sbnphiladelphia.org/images/uploads/02-17-10_
EIP_stormwater.pdf.
Geosyntec Consultants, Oregon State University, Venner Consulting, Low Impact Development Center, and
Wright Water Engineers. 2011. NCHRP Report 728: Guidelines for Evaluating and Selecting Modifications to
Existing Roadway Drainage Infrastructure to Improve Water Quality in Ultra-Urban Areas. Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies.
Miller, B. K., B. J. MacGowan, and R. P. Reaves. 2003. Are Constructed Wetlands a Viable Option for your Waste
Management System? Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University. https://www.
extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/fnr/fnr-202.pdf
Minkel, K. 2009. Innovative Approaches for Managing Stormwater Runoff: Constructed Wetlands.
Natural Resources Defense Council. 2009. Water Efficiency Saves Energy: Reducing Global Warming Pollution
Through Water Use Strategies. Water Facts series. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/energywater.pdf
38

References 39
Oregon State University, Geosyntec Consultants, University of Florida, and The Low Impact Development Cen-
ter, Inc. 2006. NCHRP Report 565: Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff Control.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Port of Seattle. n.d. Sea-Tac Airport’s Stormwater Program. https://www.portseattle.org/Environmental/Water-
Wetlands-Wildlife/Stormwater/Pages/Airport-Stormwater.aspx (As of December 4, 2016).
Taylor, S., M. Barrett, M. Leisenring, S. Sahu, D. Pankani, A. Poresky, A. Questad, E. Strecker, N. Weinstein, and
M. Venner. 2014. NCHRP Report 792: Long-Term Performance and Life-Cycle Costs of Stormwater Best
Management Practices. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center (UNHSC). 2012. 2012 Biennial Report.
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD). 2013. BMP—Rational Estimation of Actual Likely Costs of
Stormwater Treatment (BMP-REALCOST)—User’s Manual: Appendix C. http://udfcd.org/software.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2007. Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Devel-
opment (LID) Strategies and Practices.
U.S. EPA. 2012. Barrier Buster #3: Costs of Low Impact Development: LID Saves Money and Protects Your Com-
munity’s Resources, EPA 841-N-12-003C. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/
bbfs3cost.pdf
U.S. EPA. 2013. The Importance of Operation and Maintenance for the Long-Term Success of Green Infrastruc-
ture: A Review of Green Infrastructure O&M Practices in ARRA Clean Water State Revolving Fund Projects.
PA-832-R-12-007. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/documents/green_infrastructure-
om_report.pdf.
U.S. EPA. 2015. Tools, Strategies and Lessons Learned from EPA Green Infrastructure Technical Assistance Projects.
EPA 832-R-15-016.
Velazquez, L. S. 2005 (updated 2008). European Airport Greenroofs: A Potential Model for North America.
Wallace, S., and M. Liner. 2011. Design and Performance of the Wetland Treatment System at the Buffalo Niagara
International Airport. Naturally Wallace Consulting. http://naturallywallace.com/projects/projectDetail.
aspx?id=9.
Washburn, B. E., and T. W. Seamans. 2013. “Managing Turfgrass to Reduce Wildlife Hazards at Airports.” In:
T. L. DeVault, B. F. Blackwell, and J. L. Belant, editors. Wildlife in Airport Environments: Preventing Animal–
Aircraft Collisions Through Science-Based Management. The Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 105–114.
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/13pubs/washburn134.pdf.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
NON-PROFIT ORG.
ISBN 978-0-309-44641-9
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
U.S. POSTAGE
90000
PAID
9 780309 446419

Green Stormwater Infra - Vol 1 Primer PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Green Stormwater Infra - Vol 1 Primer PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24817 SHARE

Green Stormwater Infrastructure - Volume 1: Primer

166 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 174

Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 174, volume 1

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 174, VOLUME 1

ACRP Project 02-62 Panel

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ix Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Initialisms

9 GSI Best Management Practices

26 Benefits of Green Stormwater Infrastructure

34 Challenges and Constraints Associated with

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The Problem: Stormwater Management at Airports

Pervious and Impervious Areas at Airports

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Green Stormwater Infrastructure

Figure 1. Runoff from impervious and pervious surfaces.

Source: Michael Baker International.

Figure 2. Damage from uncontrolled

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Source: © 2016 Google Earth.

Figure 3. Airfield pervious areas at Austin Bergstrom

Table 1. Percentage of impervious cover by land use.

Information source: University of Delaware, Water Resources Agency, 1998;

Source: © 2016 Google Earth.

Figure 4. Aerial view of Georgetown

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Green Stormwater Infrastructure

Table 2. Typical pollutant loads for airport land uses.*

Water Quality Characteristics of Stormwater Runoff from Airports

History of Stormwater Regulations at Airports

Table 3. Summary of stormwater permitting programs.

Resources for Stormwater Permitting Programs Applicability to Airports

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Two Approaches: Conventional Versus

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Green Stormwater Infrastructure

Source: Francis (2010).

Figure 5. The spectrum of stormwater management infrastructure.

Conventional Stormwater Management at Airports

Flood Management and Erosion Control

Water Quality Enhancement/Pollution Control

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Source: Port of Seattle (n.d.).

Figure 6. Concrete-lined detention basin

Green Stormwater Infrastructure

Source: Port of Seattle (n.d.).

Figure 7. Proprietary stormwater treatment system

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.