Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

GreenWater Stakeholders Package

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

GreenWater Stakeholders Package

  1. 1. Stakeholders Meeting Package Reference Materials Moving forward to rejuvenate the Rotunda and create a rainwater harvesting system for the Sustainable SFU Learning Garden. 2013 Jeff Lemon, Justin Bauer, June Bay, Sarah Vanderveer GreenWater: ChangeLab: Simon Fraser University 3/6/2013
  2. 2. Table&of&Contents& Section(1(–(Final(Project(Proposal( 3( Project(Proposal:(Rotunda(Rooftop(Ecological(Restoration(&(Water(Management( 4( Section(2(–(Survey(Results( 10( Survey:(Student(Attitudes(Toward(Current(Greenspaces(on(SFU(Burnaby(Campus( ( Created(by:(Darrien(Morton(&(Jeff(Lemon! Compiled(and(Analyzed(by:(Darrien(Morton( 11( ( ( ( ( ( Survey(Data(Set( ( 14( Section(3(–(Proposed(Costs( 17( Cost(Estimates( 18( Quotes(on(Water(Tanks(for(the(Learning(Garden( ( 19( ( SFU(Transportation(Centre(Rotunda(Roof(–(Reflective(Pool(RetroQfitting( ( 24( ( External(Grant(Funding( 29( ! Section(4(–(Rainwater(Harvesting(for(the(Learning(Garden( 30( Potential(Tank(Placement( 31( ( Rainwater(Statistics(for(SFU(Burnaby(Campus( 41( ( Index(of(Potential(Rainwater(Harvesting(Tanks( 48( ! Section(5(–(Rotunda(Rooftop(Ecological(Restoration(Project( 63( Proposed(Use(of(Rotunda(Greenspace( 64( ( Creating(Social(Spaces(on(the(Restored(Rotunda( 71( ( ( ( Quotes(on(Benches(for(Rotunda(Seating( ( 75( ( Effect(of(Roof(Material(on(Water(Quality(for(Rainwater(Harvesting(Systems(Report( ( By:(Texas(Water(Development(Board,(January(2010( 77!
  3. 3. PROJECT PROPOSAL: ROTUNDA ROOF TOP ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION & WATER MANAGEMENT Multiple project ideas were proposed by group members. Originally we were looking at a more intense project, combining several different ideas including water harvesting, the revitalization of the garden space on the Rotunda roof, and a food production co-op with raised garden beds. Research was done, including uncovering previous proposals, and the projects were pitched as separate, but connected projects to key members in Facilities. All projects have the potential to be brought to completion, but the extensive work, including safety issues and the inclusion of academics with the roof-top, co-op garden on the Education Building resulted in us letting go of that part. (It is also likely that Sustainable SFU will be taking this project on in the future). In consideration of the time-frame and the pre-existing infrastructure, we decided to move forward with the rejuvenation of the Rotunda gardens and rainwater harvesting for the learning garden.
  4. 4. Project Proposal: Rotunda Roof Top Ecological Restoration & Water Management Justin Bauer, June Bay, Jeff Lemon, and Sarah Vanderveer i Definitions | 23/01/2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Definitions .....................................................................................................................................................................1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................................................1 Project Goals & Measurements.....................................................................................................................................2 Budget ...........................................................................................................................................................................3 Timeline .........................................................................................................................................................................4
  5. 5. Project Proposal: Rotunda Roof Top Ecological Restoration & Water Management Justin Bauer, June Bay, Jeff Lemon, and Sarah Vanderveer 1 Definitions | 23/01/2013 DEFINITIONS Sustainability: Sustainability can be scientifically defined as a dynamic state in which global ecological and social systems are not systematically undermined. We believe that sustainability needs to ensure that resource consumption is balanced by resources absorbed by the ecosystem. For a community to be sustainable, it needs to be one that is largely determined by the network of resources providing its food, water, and energy and by the ability of natural systems to process its wastes. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Multiple project ideas were proposed by group members. Originally we were looking at a more intense project, combining several different ideas including water harvesting, the revitalization of the garden space on the Rotunda roof, and a food production co-op with raised garden beds. Research was done, including uncovering previous proposals, and the projects were pitched as separate, but connected projects to key members in Facilities. All projects have the potential to be brought to completion, but the extensive work, including safety issues and the inclusion of academics with the roof-top, co-op garden on the Education Building resulted in us letting go of that part. (It is also likely that Sustainable SFU will be taking this project on in the future). In consideration of the time-frame and the pre-existing infrastructure, we decided to move forward with the rejuvenation of the Rotunda gardens and rainwater harvesting for the learning garden. We have decided to use permaculture in our plans for rejuvenating the Rotunda gardens. Our reason for choosing this is two-fold. First, permaculture is really easy to take care of. This was a concern for us, because we needed to make sure we could find someone to champion this legacy project after we have graduated from SFU. Sustainable SFU was very happy to oblige. Second, permaculture acts as a natural filtration-system for harvesting rainwater. This means that the rainwater collected for the learning garden will be pre-filtered and ready-to-use. User Interface Plumbing (Learning Garden) Piping, taps, and other plumbing required to meet Learning Garden watering needs. Water Storage Tank 550 Gallon water storage tank holds water until ready for use. g Water overflow piping runs from water storage tank to drainage. First Flush Device A first flush device and filter removes any remaining solids and unwanted elements from the water. Existing Water Drainage System (Bed)g Water is deverted from the existing system g y ( ) PVC (Polyvinyl chloride pipe) brings the water to the Learning Garden area. Roof Top Plant Bed (Rotunda) Acts as a water regulator Reduces storm water Removes metals from runoff water Balances water runoff to a pH of 7 Provides ecological environment for native species and pollinators Provides positive biomass Reduces ambient temperature Provides an enjoyable environment for people
  6. 6. Project Proposal: Rotunda Roof Top Ecological Restoration & Water Management Justin Bauer, June Bay, Jeff Lemon, and Sarah Vanderveer 2 Project Goals & Measurements | 23/01/2013 The garden space will rejuvenate part of the campus architectural landscape on top of the Rotunda building at SFU Burnaby. Not only will this make use of a poorly used campus landscape, but it will create a social space to encourage interaction, communication and community at the university. It will also support and work with native flora and fauna through the creation of native species permaculture that will also promote pollination by creating natural habitat for native bee populations as well as the, to be determined, possibility of bird and bat houses. The rainwater harvesting aspect of the project will be the main supply of water for the learning garden, reducing the use of potable water to a supplementary source. PROJECT GOALS & MEASUREMENTS Our ability to evaluate the success of our project will be multifaceted including subjective, interactive and measurable methodologies. A key evaluative measure is the successful implementation of the project, how it fits within of our project concept and definition of sustainability, the comprehensiveness of its development as well as its adaptability to unforeseen circumstances and barriers. Since, in its current state, the space is primarily an area of transit between other spaces, with occasional summer use; the subjective aspect of our analysis will involve interpretation of personal use of the space by students, faculty and visitors. We will anticipate that the change in physical space and atmosphere affects the degree of interaction with the space, the social interaction and mood of people using the space. Dependent upon the date of completion and the weather, our capacity to evaluate this may be limited within the timeframe of the academic semester. Part of a long-term analysis will be the cohesive development of the permaculture itself and its support of native flora and fauna. The space will also provide an ecological use as it will become habitable for native species as well as humans. These species can then be measured by means of physical inspection and at later dates by the department of biology at SFU if they so desire. Soil sampling of the beds at a later date can provide for a measurement of bacterial and fungal activity, as well as an education experience for SFU biology students. Ecological surveys can also be conducted to assess the roof as a functioning habitat for pollinators such as bees. Of which could also provide as a local academic resource. We will also have measurable input in regards to the rainwater harvesting. The threshold of these measurements will be determined by the stakeholders. Measurements will be determined upon the learning garden requirements of water quality. As well as the requirements set forth by SFU, The City of Burnaby, and the present policies of The Province of British Columbia. Measurements may include water quality metrics such as: pH, bacterial counts, and the presents of metals. Measurements of usage may also be included whereby meters will have to be installed to measure reductions in storm water (total water collected and used + water absorbed by roof top beds), and total water collected and used in the learning garden. Our decision making process involves a collaborative approach, based in dialectics and consensus building. This is combined with reasonability of goals and takes into consideration the feasibility of the considered goal within the scope of our project and timeframe. So far our individual roles have been versatile and adaptive, responding to time constraints, availability and skill set. In January, although we will continue to work collaboratively and interconnected as a group, we will likely split up into two groups, each group focusing on a particular project.
  7. 7. Project Proposal: Rotunda Roof Top Ecological Restoration & Water Management Justin Bauer, June Bay, Jeff Lemon, and Sarah Vanderveer 3 Budget | 23/01/2013 BUDGET As of right now, our budget is almost entirely dependent upon stakeholders. Because of this, there are a number of meetings at will be held by the end of February. Mike Soron has asked us to attend a round of meetings focused upon the Learning Garden that are to be held next week (January 28-30). In these meetings we will be able to better assert the water requirements of the Learning Garden will be and the costs. With the scope of the rotunda project and its associated costs are dependent upon the approval of the Facilities application for provincial funding to renovate the entire Rotunda area, we have elected to cost out the rotunda portion of this project, as this was not part of the proposed renovation budget. The range of costs for this part of the project is estimated to be between $1000 and $30,000. This range is based upon a number of set and variable costs. To begin, the number of beds selected to be reclaimed and the type of reclamation (green roof, pond, or bog) will inevitably dictate the range in costs for the rotunda potion of this project. Once decided, other associated costs will be as follow: soil type, amount soil needed, native plant species, number of plants needed, etc. These costs will not be fully known until after stakeholders have met in February and Facilities receives it’s a response from the provincial government in regards to the renovation proposal. The range of costs for the rainwater harvesting portion of this project is estimated to be between $2000 and $15,000. This range is based upon the costs for the equipment and rainwater storage units that can be potentially used, which will be decided upon by the stakeholders during the meetings discussed above.
  8. 8. Project Proposal: Rotunda Roof Top Ecological Restoration & Water Management Justin Bauer, June Bay, Jeff Lemon, and Sarah Vanderveer 4 Timeline | 23/01/2013 TIMELINE Phase One November Consult with potential stakeholders December Examine costs for proposal Finish concept proposal and send by end of December Have green space survey for student body finished and ready to initiate 1st week back in January Phase Two January Confirm and expand stakeholders. BCIT Centre for Architectural Ecology inspection (Maureen Connelly) BCIT Centre for Architectural Ecology report Consultation with: Elizabeth Elle (SFU department of Biological Sciences, pollinator diversity expert), and BCIT Centre for Architectural Ecology Team re: native flora and fauna planning. Update Facilities once stakeholders are confirmed. Initiate, complete and analyse green space survey for stakeholder meeting in February Compile collected materials for stakeholders’ meeting & create information packaged Re-assessment of project costs given reports and collected information February Continued project planning and development. Stakeholders meeting planned and participants confirmed. Stakeholder meeting agenda created and agreed upon Dialogue with stakeholders (stakeholders meeting). Minutes report from stakeholders meeting created and distributed March Tentative construction plans created and finalized. Possible start of construction (ASAP; shooting for end of March / beginning of April) April Completion of construction (by the end of Semester / April) Project reports, blueprints, and all other collected materials filed with stakeholders
  9. 9. Survey:(Student(Attitudes(Toward(Current(Greenspaces(on(SFU(Burnaby(Campus( Created'by:'Darrien'Morton'&'Jeff'Lemon' Compiled'and'Analyzed'by:'Darrien'Morton' '' Attitudes(toward(current(and(future(greenspace(development( • Overall,(72.2%(of(students(felt(there(was(not(enough(greenspace(at(SFU(and(92.3%( stated(they(wanted(to(see(more(greenspaces(on(campus.(( ( • Of( students( who( wanted( more( greenspace,( 87.3%( wanted( more( green( roofs,( followed( by( community( gardens( (73.9%),( parks( on( campus( (73.8%),( greenways( (62.3%),(and(verandas((50%).( ( • 54%(of(students(strongly(or(somewhat(agreed(that(greenspaces(are(not(comfortable( to(relax(( ( • 58.5%(strongly(or(somewhat(agreed(that(current(greenspaces(are(satisfactory(for( spending(time(with(colleagues(and(friends( ( • 73.2%( strongly( or( somewhat( agreed( that( campus( greenspaces( require( more( beautification.(( ( • When(asked(about(greenspace(meeting(the(students’(need(for(shade(43.8%(strongly( or( somewhat( disagreed,( 24%( somewhat( agreed( and( only( 5.7%( strongly( agreed.( 20.5%(felt(neutral.( ( • Generally(current(greenspace(felt(welcoming(during(the(summer(months,(were(safe( to(be(in,(and(were(peaceful(to(study.(( ( • From(a(preliminary(analysis(of(the(openOended(question(that(asked(if(greenspaces( are( not( easily( accessible,( it( is( observed( that( from( the( 18.3%( who( strongly( or( somewhat(agreed,(location(and(seclusion(of(greenspaces(were(the(most(prevalent( responses.(( ( • 64.5%( of( students( strongly( or( somewhat( disagreed( that( campus( greenspace( has( adequate(seating.(Only(2.3%(strongly(agreed(and(12.1%(somewhat(agreed.(Of(those( disagreeing,(81.6%(stated(that(seating(is(inadequate(in(scenic(locations(with(views( across( the( campus,( 72.4%( stated( around( preOexisting( greenspace( and( 61.3( stated( inadequate(seating(that(is(built(into(new(greenspaces.( ( (
  10. 10. Attitudes(toward(current(open(space(development( • Almost(50%(of(students(there(was(enough(open(space(on(campus(and(83.4(said(they( would(like(to(see(more(open(spaces(on(campus.(( ( • 75.9%(of(those(who(wanted(more(open(spaces(stated(they(wanted(open(space(to(be( used(as(social(gathering(areas,(followed(by(greenspace(areas((75.1%),(natural(areas( (57%),(recreational(areas(48.6%),(and(educational(areas(39%)( • 72.2( %( of( students( believed( that( the( design( of( campus( greenspaces( should( be( improved.( ( Perceptions(of(greenspace(usage( • For(the(usage(of(greenspace,(73.6%(of(students(reported(that(greenspace(should(be( used(as(an(education(space(is(very(important(or(somewhat(important,(while(92.6%( thought( that( greenspace( should( be( used( as( a( breathing( space( with( 58.9%( considering( it( very( important.( 88.2%( considered( greenspace( that( is( used( for( studying(very(or(somewhat(important(and(83.8%(thought(greenspace(that(is(used(as( a( meeting( space( very( or( somewhat( important.( ( Related( to( the( natural( aspects( of( greenspace( usage,( greenspace( as( a( growing( (73.6%)( or( wild( (74%)( space,( in( comparison(to(social(aspects(of(usage,(was(considerably(lower.(( ( • 93.9%( of( students( though( trees( and( shrubs( were( very( or( somewhat( important,( followed(by(fountains(93.8%),(flowerbed(and(planters((77.8%),(arbors((75.45),(and( 74.2%(of(students(finding(cobblestone(walkways(important,(with(44.7%(stating(they( are( very( important.( ( 60.2%( of( students( thought( paved( walkways( would( be( important.(61%(of(students(identifies(drinking(fountain(as(important.( ( • Only(44.2%(thought(benches(were(important(but(32.8%(felt(neutral.(On(the(other( hand,(49.6%(of(students(considered(picnic(tables(to(be(very(unimportant( ( • 64.4%(of(students(thought(native(animal(species(are(important(( ( Perceptions(toward(sustainability(and(greenspace(( • 97.5%( of( students( believed( greenspace( was( important( for( Burnaby( campus( and( 93.4%( of( students( cared( whether( greenspace( on( campus( benefitted( the( natural(environment(of(Burnaby(campus.( ( ( (
  11. 11. Survey(Analysis( ( Campus(greenspace(at(SFU(is(considered(by(students(to(be(a(highly(valuable(asset(and(feature( of(Burnaby’s(built(and(natural(environment.(Both(within(the(campus,(and(between((the(campus( and(natural(environment(of(Burnaby(mountain(The(survey(results(indicate(that(not(only(do(a( majority(of(the(students(sampled(believe(there(is(not(enough(greenspace(on(campus((72.2%),( but(almost(unanimously,(students(believe(more(is(needed.(For(those(who(believed(the(campus( required( more( greenspaces,( 87.3%( indicated( they( would( like( additional( rooftop( gardens.( Students( identified( rooftop( gardens( as( a( priority( more( so( than( any( other( type( of( campus( greenspace.( Furthering( and( increasing( the( development( of( greenspace( is( thus( considered( a( necessity.( When( asked( about( open( space( development( in( general,( without( restricting( it( to( greenspace( uses( exclusively,( students( still( identified( greenspace( to( be( the( one( of( the( most( important( type( of( open( space,( falling( shortly( behind( social( gathering( spaces( such( as( public( plazas.(( ( Based(on(students’(attitudes(toward(current(greenspaces,(responses(indicate(that(most(issues( exist( concerning( the( physical( aspects( and( features( of( green( space( compared( to( the( social( aspects(and(features.(Knowing(student(attitudes(toward(current(greenspace(may(therefore(help( inform(future(developments.(Physical(aspects(that(were(found(to(be(considerably(problematic( were( comfort,( aesthetic( design( of( the( campus( greenspaces,( shade,( accessibility,( and,( in( particular,(seating.(Seating(is(regarded(inadequate(especially(for(those(areas(with(scenic(views( of(the(campus.(The(social(conditions(that(aspects(and(features(of(greenspace(promote,(however,( are(generally(regarded(as(satisfactory(at(meeting(the(needs(for(many(of(the(students(sampled.( These(needs(include(safety,(a(social(space(for(congregating(and(a(peaceful(space(for(studying.(( During(the(summer(months,(greenspaces(are(generally(thought(of(as(welcoming.( In(terms(of(what(students(perceived(to(be(important(aspects(and(features(of(greenspace(usage,( both(social(and(physical(aspects(and(features(were(identified.(As(a(social(space,(greenspace(was( perceived(to(be(most(important(as(a(breathing(and(studying(space,(possibly(signifying(that(the( peacefulness(of(greenspace(is(important(to(students.(Though,(greenspace(as(a(meeting(space( was(also(considered(important.(Campus(greenspaces(for(natural(uses,(such(as(a(growing(or(wild( space,(were(considered(less(important(than(social(aspects(of(use.((Responses(related(to(natural( and(social(features(of(greenspace(usage(were(varied(with(plants,(other(vegetation,(walkways,( fountains,( benches,( drinking( fountains( and( the( presence( of( native( animal( species( being( considered(important.(On(the(other(hand,(picnic(tables,(rocks(and(boulders,(and(gazebos,(were( found(to(be(less(important.(( Overall,(these(survey(results(indicate(that(not(only(are(more(greenspaces(deemed(a(necessity(by( students,( but( the( incorporation( and( maintenance( of( greenspace( furnishings( and( natural( and( physical( features( require( better( strategic( and( conceptual( planning( in( relation( to( greenspace( design.(For(future(developments(of(greenspace,(it(must(be(kept(in(mind,(however,(that(these( spaces( should( cater( to( the( needs( of( students( by( way( of( promoting( a( peaceful,( restful,( yet( interactive,(environment.((
  12. 12. ITEM # Question Description Yes No Maybe/IDK StA SoA N SoD StD IDK VI SI DCare SU VU 1 Overall, do you think there are enough greenspaces on Burnaby campus? 27.8 72.2 2A Would you like to see more greenspaces on Burnaby campus? 92.3 7.7 What types of greenspaces would you like to see more of on Burnaby campus? 2B1 IF YES 2A Parks on campus 73.8 26.2 2B2 Community gardens 73.9 26.2 2B3 Rooftop Gardens 87.3 12.7 2B4 Verandas 50 50 2B5 Greenways 62.3 37.7 2B6 Other 2C IF YES 2A text Which area(s) on Burnaby campus do you think requires more greenspace development? (Optional) Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? 3A Campus gardens are spacious enough to meet my needs 12.8 38.8 26.4 18.2 3.1 0.8 3B Campus greenspaces are not comfortable enough to relax 14.3 39.9 14.3 22.1 7.8 1.6 3C Campus greenspaces are peaceful enough to study 10.5 39.1 21.7 26.7 0 1.9 3D Campus greenspaces are satisfactory enough for spending time with friends and/or colleagues 15.9 42.6 18.2 17.8 4.7 0.8 3E Campus greenspaces are satisfactory for social gatherings 9.7 36.8 19 26.7 5 2.7 3F Campus greenspaces require more beautification 33.7 39.5 18.3 4.7 2.7 1.2 3G Campus greenspaces are noisy 5.1 32.7 31.9 21 8.2 1.2 3H Campus greenspaces have enough trees to meet my needs for shade 9.3 24 20.5 38.4 5.4 2.3 3I Campus greenspaces feel unwelcoming during the summer months 2.3 13.1 18.5 30.5 30.1 5.4 3J Campus greenspaces feel safe to use 36.2 40.9 14 5.8 0.8 2.3 3K1 Campus greenspaces are not easily accessible 2.7 15.6 34.6 30 14 3.1 3K2 IF AGREE 3K1 text Why do you think campus greenspaces are not accessible 3L1 Campus greenspaces have adequate seating 2.3 12.1 19.5 37.7 26.8 1.6 IF DISAGREE 3L1 Please specify where you feel seating is inadequate 3L2A Scenic locations with views across campus 81.6 18.4 3L2B Built into new greenspace 61.3 38.7 3L3C Built around pre-existing greensaces 72.4 27.6 3L2D text Other 4 Generally, do you think there are enough urban open spaces on Burnaby campus? 50.2 49.8 5 Would you like to see more urban open spaces on Burnaby campus? 83.4 16.6 Frequencies (%)
  13. 13. What should open space be used for on Burnaby campus? (Choose 3) 6A Recreational areas 48.6 51.4 6B Social gathering areas 75.9 24.1 6C Greenspace areas 75.1 24.9 6D Educational areas 39 61 6E Natural areas 57 43 6F text Other 7 How would you rate the general upkeep and appearance of greenspace on Burnaby campus? 0 13.3 62.9 17.3 0.8 5.6 8A Should the current design of greenspaces on Burnaby campus be further improved? 72.2 5.6 22.2 8B IF YES 8A text How do you think greenspace should be improved? (Optional) 9 Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with greenspace at Burnaby campus currently? 3.2 36.7 36.7 20.2 2.8 0.4 10 text Please complete the following sentence. I would use greenspace on Burnaby campus more if……………………… Which of the following uses of greenspace do you consider would be important for Burnaby campus? 11A Breathing space - a space to retreat from the bustle of campus buildings 58.9 33.7 5.3 1.6 0.4 11B Healthy space - a space for performing physical activity or other beneficial health-related activities 42.3 37 13 4.9 2.8 11C Meeting space - a space to meet with other students or people 40.7 43.1 13 2.8 0.4 11D Studying space - a space to study 54.9 33.3 6.1 4.9 0.8 11E Play space - a space with fun, entertaining and/or creative activities 28.5 41.5 17.5 11 1.6 11F Learning space - a space with activities to gain skills and learn e.g. composting and gardening activities, social or cultural events, environmental or community services and programs etc 40.7 41.1 12.6 4.5 1.2 11G Growing space – a space for growing fruits and vegetables 45.1 28.5 13.8 9.3 3.3 11H Wild space - a space that requires less human contact and may serve as a habitat for animals or larger trees and bushes 42.3 31.7 12.2 9.8 4.1 11I text Other Which of the following physical structures do you think would be important for greenspace on Burnaby campus? 12A Flowerbeds and planters 34.8 43 14.8 4.9 2.5 12B Trees and shrubs 61.1 32.8 4.5 1.6 0 12C Gazebos 29.9 32.8 24.2 8.2 4.9 12D Arbors (framework that supports climbing plants and provides shade) 28.7 46.7 19.7 3.7 1.2 12E Picnic tables 35.7 11.5 3.3 49.6 12F Drinking fountains 34 27 25 10.2 3.7 12G Ponds 13.9 31.6 28.3 16 10.2
  14. 14. 12H Fountains 59.8 34 4.9 1.2 12I Benches 17.6 26.6 32.8 14.3 8.6 12J Rocks or boulders 16.8 29 25 20.1 9 12K Paved walkways 17.2 43 23 11.5 5.3 12L Cobblestone walkways 44.7 29.5 16.8 6.6 2.5 12M Native animal species 27.5 36.9 24.6 7.8 3.3 12N text Other 13 Do you believe that greenspace is NOT important for the Burnaby campus? 2.5 97.5 14 Do you care whether greenspace on campus benefits the natural environment of Burnaby Mountain? 93.4 6.6 15 Would you prefer that greenspace be kept ONLY outside on campus grounds, and NOT inside the campus buildings? 12.8 87.2 16 Do you think that classes which are taught on campus greenspace rather than inside classrooms/lecture halls would be beneficial to your learning? 72.7 27.3 17 Should a portion of the sustainability charges included in your student fees be used for greenspace development on campus? 73.4 26.6 18 If given the chance, would you offer technical or volunteer services toward campus greenspace planning and development? 18.6 38.4 43 19A Do you believe that decisions involving greenspace planning and development on Burnaby campus should include students? 96.3 3.7 19B IF Y/N 19A text Why do you believe decisions should or should not involve students?
  15. 15. COST%ESTIMATES% ! RAINWATER%MANAGEMENT:%COST%ESTIMATES% % RAINWATER%STORAGE%TANK%OPTIONS% 550!USG!Water!Tank! ! $439.65! 1,000!USG!Water!Tank! ! $775.00! 2,500!USG!Water!Tank!! ! $1,311.11! 5,!000!USG!Water!Tank!! $3,689.23! ! ! RAIN%HARVESTING%FILTER%OPTIONS% Leaf!Beater!=!fits!4"!Round!Downspout! ! $41.27! 4"!Leaf!Eater!Ultra! $76.54! ! FIRST%FLUSH%DIVERTER%OPTIONS% 4"!Downspout!First!Flush!Diverter!Kit!=!Assembly!required! ! $47.00! ! PIPING% 4”! PVC! materials! cost! on! average! $1! per! foot.! Consultation! will! be! done! in! the! stakeholder’s! meeting! to! address! the! location! of! the! diversion! and! the! length! of! PVC! drainage! material! required.! ! $20!=!$500! Additional!plumbing!materials!such!as!taps,!valves,!and!piping!to!connect!filtration.! $50!=!$500! ! WATER%STORAGE%TANK%PAD% A!pad!maybe!required!to!place!the!water!storage!tank!onto.!The!price!of!this!pad!will!vary!depending!on!material! selected!(gravel,!concrete),!as!well!as!the!diameter!and!weight!of!the!water!storage!tank.!General!estimates!place! the!cost!at!$0!=!$500! % ROTUNDA%AREA:%COST%ESTIMATES% ! SOIL%OPTIONS%% Soil!specification!can!range!depending!on!the!environment.!As!a!pricing!range!can!only!be!given!until!a!specification! has!been!decided!by!BCIT.!Prices!also!will!vary!depending!on!how!many!beds!are!selected!and!for!what!purpose! (green!roof,!bog,!pond).! ! Prices!range!from!$10/cubic!m!to!as!high!as!$220/cubic!m!for!specialty!soils.! % Example:!Including!the!use!of!a!soil!blower!one!quote!was!given!at!=!$65/cubic!m)! ! Small!Rooftop!Bed!(17.5!sq.!m,!1/3m!deep)! ! $379.20! Medium!Rooftop!Bed!(35!sq.!m,!1/3m!deep)! ! $758.40! Large!Rooftop!Bed!(117!sq.!m,!1/3m!deep)! $2,535! !
  16. 16. SIMFRA1 Master No. Quote BARR Plastics Inc. 8888 University Drive Burnaby BC V5A 1S6 8888 University Drive Burnaby BC V5A 1S6 Unit A - 31192 South Fraser Way 1 RWQ000603 Simon Fraser University 1/23/13 Purchase Order No. Customer ID Salesperson ID Payment Terms Quantity Item Number DescriptionUOM Unit Price Ext. Price Ship To:Bill To: Date Page Simon Fraser University ME NET 30 0/00/00 19,509 Abbotsford BC V2T 6L5 Canada Phone :(604) 852-8522 Fax: (604) 852-8022 Toll free: (800) 665-4499 Business No: 864884135 Phone: (778) 782-3385 Ext. 000 Phone: Fax: (778) 782-3385 Ext. 0000 (778) 782-4521 Ext. BOB0 Lead Time 4-6 WEEKS Req Ship Date Shipping Method Shipping Via DRW#Shipping Reference C$3,689.23 C$3,689.23EACH1 40943 5000 USG BLK H20 TANK W/ 2" FTG (141"D) x 86.0"H WEIGHT: 794LBS C$76.54 C$76.54EACH1 RHUL98 4" LEAF EATER ULTRA C$529.07 C$529.07EACH1 60115861 ECOTRONIC 250 1HP BOOSTER PUMP W/ PRESSURE SWITCH DIM: 19.0"L x 11.0"W x 18.0"H WEIGHT: 20LBS C$500.00 C$500.00Each1.00 BUDGET BUDGET FOR PIPE, FITTINGS, HOSE, ETC... C$4,794.84 C$0.00 C$0.00 C$0.00 Subtotal Misc GST/HST Freight Trade Discount Total C$5,370.22 Thank you for the opportunity to quote! Print Name: Signed: Date: Terms: 2. 50% Deposit with order, 50% balance due on delivery. 3. 2% interest charged on over-due accounts. 4. All orders must be confirmed by a signed quote and deposit, or a purchase PURCHASER: I have reviewed and accepted the above sales quote and have checked order, OAC. it for accuracy and accept the Terms and Conditions attached. Terms and Conditions are available upon request from the sales manager at 1-800-665-4499 1. Above Prices are FOB our shop, taxes extra unless specified. 5. This quote is valid for 15 days. Returns are subject to min. 25% restocking 6. Items will be invoiced on the ready to ship date. C$575.38
  17. 17. SIMFRA1 Master No. Quote BARR Plastics Inc. 8888 University Drive Burnaby BC V5A 1S6 8888 University Drive Burnaby BC V5A 1S6 Unit A - 31192 South Fraser Way 1 RWQ000604 Simon Fraser University 1/23/13 Purchase Order No. Customer ID Salesperson ID Payment Terms Quantity Item Number DescriptionUOM Unit Price Ext. Price Ship To:Bill To: Date Page Simon Fraser University ME NET 30 0/00/00 19,510 Abbotsford BC V2T 6L5 Canada Phone :(604) 852-8522 Fax: (604) 852-8022 Toll free: (800) 665-4499 Business No: 864884135 Phone: (778) 782-3385 Ext. 000 Phone: Fax: (778) 782-3385 Ext. 0000 (778) 782-4521 Ext. BOB0 Lead Time IN STOCK Req Ship Date Shipping Method Shipping Via DRW#Shipping Reference C$1,311.11 C$2,622.22EACH2 40867 2500 USG GRN H2O TANK W/ 2" FTG DIM: 95"L x 89.0"H WEIGHT: 339LBS C$76.54 C$76.54EACH1 RHUL98 4" LEAF EATER ULTRA C$529.07 C$529.07EACH1 60115861 ECOTRONIC 250 1HP BOOSTER PUMP W/ PRESSURE SWITCH DIM: 19.0"L x 11.0"W x 18.0"H WEIGHT: 20LBS C$500.00 C$500.00Each1.00 BUDGET BUDGET FOR PIPE, FITTINGS, HOSE, ETC... C$3,727.83 C$0.00 C$0.00 C$0.00 Subtotal Misc GST/HST Freight Trade Discount Total C$4,175.17 Thank you for the opportunity to quote! Print Name: Signed: Date: Terms: 2. 50% Deposit with order, 50% balance due on delivery. 3. 2% interest charged on over-due accounts. 4. All orders must be confirmed by a signed quote and deposit, or a purchase PURCHASER: I have reviewed and accepted the above sales quote and have checked order, OAC. it for accuracy and accept the Terms and Conditions attached. Terms and Conditions are available upon request from the sales manager at 1-800-665-4499 1. Above Prices are FOB our shop, taxes extra unless specified. 5. This quote is valid for 15 days. Returns are subject to min. 25% restocking 6. Items will be invoiced on the ready to ship date. C$447.34
  18. 18. AlternativeRoughMaterialTotal #UnitsCost/unitStorageTanks Shipping&Inst allation Pumps& FiltersFoundationElectrical Piping&fittings 1000linealfeet ofpipe(excludes labor) 1.AllRainwaterHOGs-at50gallonscapacitypertank-appropriateforsmallor demonstrationareas.(assumeswithwallbracket) $148,100.00 400299119600160006500TBD6000 2.AmixofVodatanks(600gallons)andHOGs(50gallons)indiscretelocationsaroundthe site $54,340.00 34110037400204055003400TBD6000 3.2Largecapacitytanks(10-12Kgallon)-issuesregardingaesthetics,shippingand installation.Note:waterisheavy $72,000.00 212000240003500350035000TBD6000 4.Distributedcollectionandstoragesystem-Oneforthepermaculture/collectionareaand secondforthegarden TBD Storageof20KGallons Abovearesomeverypreliminarybudgetnumbersfor3differentscenarios. Thesedonumbersareforplanningpurposeonly.Actualquotewillbeprovided onceafirmsystemrequirementsanddesignaredeveloped.Numbersdonot reflectlabortoinstalltanks,electrical,foundation,orpiping
  19. 19. 26May2008 www.rainwaterhog.com GLENMOREROADPUBLICSCHOOLrainwaterHOGcasestudy 09 Atotalof18RainwaterHOGswereusedbyGlenmorePublicSchooltowatervariousareasoftheschool grounds.Thetransportableclassroomshavestrictcriteriawhichdoesnotallowanypermanentconnection tothesite,meaningthatthattheirdownspoutsgenerallyrunontothesurroundingground.Theportable, lightweightandreusablenatureofHOGsmeantthattheycouldbeinstalleddirectlyonthegroundunder theclassroomstocollectandreusethewaterfordripirrigation,withtheknowledgethatoncetheclass- roomswereremovedtheHOGscouldberecommissionedelsewherewithoutleavingfoundationsbehind. FortheCottageinstallation,thenarrowprofileofHOGsmadethemidealtostorethelowvolumeofwater fromtheheritagebuilding'sroofwithoutcompromisingoutdoorplayarea.Thecontainednatureofthe HOGmodulemeansthatitissafearoundchildren,withnoareasofegressorinstability. TwoverticallymountedHOGssupplywaterforthesmallsidegarden. HOGmodulesbeddedintothesoilunderthetransportableclassrooms,store 618gallons(2340litres)fordripirrigationofsurroundinggrounds. HOGsarebanked horizontallyontheground underthetransportable classrooms,onesetof6and onesetof7foratotal618 gallons(2340litres)to providewaterforgarden irrigation.TheDepartment ofEducationdoesnotallow permanentattachmentsto thetransportables.HOGis aperfectsolutionbecause whentheclassroomsare removedtheHOGscanbe deployedinanotherpartof theschoolgrounds. 2HOGsmountedverticallycollectwaterforsmallgardenhosing. 3HOGsmountedverticallyon thewallofTheCottageand afterschoolcarecentrewhich didnotwanttoloseany outdoorplayspace.HOGsare usedtohosetheadjacent vegetablepatch. 19½” (500mm) 9½” (240mm) 71”(1800mm) 47gallons(180litre)18HOGs 846galLons 3,240litres
  20. 20. ExternalFunders Nameof funderGrantNameNameofcontactEmail/phonenumberFundinginterestdeadlineGrantingregionFundingrangeAddressLink(ifany)NotificationPreviousGrantsRecipients VanCityGreenBuilding Grant MoiraTeevan604.877.7620Minimizetheimpact ofclimatechange andimprove sustainablelanduse practicesby supportinggreen buildinginitiativesin B.C. 02Apr13BritishColumbia.A portionofthefundswill bedesignatedforprojects takingplacewithinthe LowerMainland,Fraser Valley,orCapitalRegional District.Preferencewill begiventoprojects completedwithinatwo yeartimeframe. Providesgrantsofupto $50,000 GreenBuildingGrant ProgramRealEstate FoundationofBritish Columbia570355 BurrardStreet Vancouver,B.C.V6C 2G8 https://www.vancity.com/MyCo mmunity/NotForProfit/Grants/G reenBuildingGrant/ June,2013.CommunityEnergyAssociation: DistrictEnergyReady$45,000 LasquetiCommunity Association:Community RenewableHeat&Power Planning&Design$17,000 O.U.R.Ecovillage:ZeroMile Eatery$30,000 SaltSpringIslandLandBank Society:GreywaterReuse Retrofit$8,000 VanCityCommunity ProjectGrant MichellePandhmichelle_pandher@vancity. com Environment: Buildingnatural habitatby protectingand restoringnatural habitatsandeco systemsincluding forests,rivers, wetlandsandbogs. Encouraging environmental OngoingBurnaby/NorthShore/ Vancouver/Richmond/Sur rey/Victoria/Tri Cities/FraserValley $15,000:maximum fundingfor projects/programs $2,500:maximumfunding forconferences, workshops,andforums $1,500:maximumfunding forcommunityfestivals Community Investmentteam, Region#: POBox2120 StationTerminal Vancouver,BC V6B5R8 https://www.vancity.com/MyCo mmunity/NotForProfit/Grants/C ommunityProjectGrants/ Ongoing WalmartEvergreen Grants EllenKarossekaross@evergreen.caNativeplantinginitiat01Mar13Canadaupto$10000Walmart–Evergreen GreenGrantsC/o EllenKaross–Assistant, nationalPrograms CentreforGreen Cities,Suite300, EvergreenBrickworks 550BayviewAvenue, Toronto,ontarioM4w 3X8 http://www.evergreen.ca/en/fu nding/grants/walmart.sn 22Apr13BrooksCommunitiesinBloom– Brooks,AB(Commemorative Forest)NorthwestInvasive PlantCouncil–PrinceGeorge, BC(RestorationofHudsonBay Slough&CarrieJaneGreyPark) and64communitygroupsin 2012 TDFEFEnvironmantl Funding NANAEnvironmental educationTree Planting(native plantspecies) HabitatRestortion andstewardship EnergyConservation andRenewable EnergyInstallations 15Jan2013,15 March2013, July2013,Nov 2015 CanadaaverageTDFEFgrantis approximately$2,500BUT noset minimum/maximum amount onlineapplicationonlyhttp://www.fef.td.com/funding. jsp April2013,June 2013,Oct2013, Feb2014 BCHydroNANANAInvolvecommunities whereBCHydrohas facilities,operations andimpacts/ supportPower Smartprogramsor initiatives/ NABC$1000>/<onlineapplicationonlyhttp://www.bchydro.com/com munity/community_investment/ donations_sponsorships/how_to _apply.html NA
  21. 21. Learning! Garden" "
  22. 22. Current water ! supply" Potential Tank placement"
  23. 23. Rain barrel storage" adjacent to the Learning Garden" " Hedge extended to protect equipment and maintain a gentle off-limits " designation"
  24. 24. Potential placement space for rain barrels"
  25. 25. Potential tap-in spaces & 2nd possible Tank site ! 2nd po"
  26. 26. Potential tap sites and ! Rotunda Access"
  27. 27. Tap and barrel sites"
  28. 28. Potential pre-existing tap-in pipe site"
  29. 29. Barrels:! wall-mounted ! 50 USG ! $299/ea! =$6/USG" Good use of under-utilized horizontal space.! Expensive." Places most weight on building structure, not on the ground."
  30. 30. Potential for future harvesting?"
  31. 31. Statistics: Burnaby Simon Fraser U, BC, Canada Station: Burnaby Simon Fraser U, BC, Canada Latitude: 49.3° Longitude: -122.9° Altitude: 365.8 m The weather statistics displayed here represent the value of each meteorological parameter for each month of the year. The sampling period for this data covers 30 years. Record maximums and minimums are updated annually. Precipitation JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly rainfall (mm) 216 185 175 143 115 103 72 67 93 198 298 251 Monthly snowfall (cm) 29 21 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 33 Monthly precipitation (mm) 245 206 185 145 115 103 72 67 93 198 307 284 Mean daily snow depth (cm) 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Median daily Snow depth (cm) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Mean monthly end snow depth cm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Single day record rainfall (mm) 172 86 89 83 48 62 79 59 94 86 80 102 Date Jan 18 1968 Feb 23 1986 Mar 18 1997 Apr 20 1972 May 24 1974 Jun 28 1984 Jul 11 1972 Aug 26 1991 Sep 16 1968 Oct 16 1975 Nov 12 1998 Dec 25 1972 Single day record snowfall (cm) 31 49 30 14 0 0 0 0 0 3 23 50 Date Jan 12 1971 Feb 09 1999 Mar 01 1997 Apr 04 1982 May 03 1965 Jun 01 1965 Jul 01 1965 Aug 01 1965 Sep 01 1965 Oct 31 1984 Nov 30 1968 Dec 21 1996
  32. 32. JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Single day record precipitation (mm) 172 86 89 83 48 62 79 59 94 86 80 102 Date Jan 18 1968 Feb 23 1986 Mar 18 1997 Apr 20 1972 May 24 1974 Jun 28 1984 Jul 11 1972 Aug 26 1991 Sep 16 1968 Oct 16 1975 Nov 12 1998 Dec 25 1972 Extreme daily Snow depth (cm) 31 31 14 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 28 Date Jan 03 1982 Feb 23 1982 Mar 12 1982 Apr 12 1981 May 01 1981 Jun 01 1981 Jul 01 1981 Aug 01 1980 Sep 01 1981 Oct 01 1981 Nov 01 1984 Dec 30 1984 Days with: Rainfall JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Above 0.2 mm 16 15 17 15 13 13 7 7 10 16 20 16 Above 5 mm 11 10 10 9 7 6 4 4 5 10 14 11 Above 10 mm 8 7 6 5 4 4 3 2 3 7 10 9 Above 25 mm 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 Days with: Snowfall JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Above 0.2 cm 5 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 Above 5 cm 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Above 10 cm 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Above 25 cm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Days with: Precipitation JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Above 0.2 mm 19 17 18 15 13 13 7 7 10 16 21 20 Above 5 mm 13 11 11 9 7 6 4 4 5 10 14 13 Above 10 mm 9 7 7 5 4 4 3 2 3 7 11 10 Above 25 mm 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 4 Snow depth JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
  33. 33. JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Mean daily snow depth (cm) 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Median daily Snow depth (cm) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Extreme daily Snow depth (cm) 31 31 14 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 28 Mean monthly end snow depth cm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Days with: JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Freezing rain or freezing drizzle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thunderstorms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fog, ice fog, or freezing fog Data unavailable for this station. Haze or smoke Data unavailable for this station. Blowing dust Data unavailable for this station. Blowing snow Data unavailable for this station. Source: (26.01.2013) http://www.theweathernetwork.com/statistics/precipitation/cl1101158
  34. 34. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Gallons Months Actual vs. Desired Total Monthly Water Use for Irrigation via Rain Catchment (Based on WA State Irrigation Guide) Desired Monthly Rainwater for Irrigation Use (gallons) Actual Enabled Rainwater for Irrigation Use (gallons)
  35. 35. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Gallons Months Actual vs. Desired Total Monthly Water Use for Irrigation via Rain Catchment (Based on WA State Irrigation Guide) Desired Monthly Rainwater for Irrigation Use (gallons) Actual Enabled Rainwater for Irrigation Use (gallons)
  36. 36. Burnaby 4,000 0.092 3,000 Jan 3,000 5,111 0 0 Feb 3,000 3,761 12,127 31,967 Mar 3,000 3,359 Month Inches Need (gallons) 12,127 31,967 Apr 3,000 2,913 Apr 0 0 May 3,000 202 May 0.89 2,219 Jun 0 0 Jun 3.12 7,780 Jul 0 0 Jul 4.38 10,922 Aug 0 0 Aug 3.05 7,605 Sep 0 0 Sep 1.38 3,441 Oct 3,000 3,917 Oct 0 0 Nov 3,000 5,669 Dec 3,000 5,357 Total 12.8 31,967 Enter rainwater harvesting cistern storage capacity (gallons) Enter roof size in s.f. (assumes 100% roof dedicated to catchment and 80% or rain/snow that falls on roof is captured) If you see a "resize/reduce" message under the Gallons heading, your desired use is too high for the size of your roof/cistern. If you don't care if your cistern goes dry, change that setting above. Are you concerned if your cistern goes dry during the summer (is rainwater your sole source or is it a source augmentation)? If you are concerned, click yes. If not, click no. A yes entry will trigger a reduce/resize message below under Desired Use below if your cistern runs dry - this ensures your needs can be met. 2,232 Safety factor consideration: The box to the right shows your average monthly cistern levels. August/September is when Washingtonians have the lowest cistern levels due to the dry summer. If you're relying on rainwater for potable supply, you want to make sure that you don't let your cistern get too low during that time period as we don't always receive average precipitation every year. Your total indoor use Your total outdoor use Total annual use (indoor and outdoor use) Rainwater Harvesting Calculator Estimate household or building daily indoor use in gallons per day (gpd) Enter lawn in square feet that you want to keep green (1 acre = 43,560 s.f.) Month Cistern Volume Carryover (gallons) Above square foot of lawn converted to acre Given inputted indoor use and lawn size, this shows how much water you annually want to use and actually can use (indoor use is prioritized over outdoor use if all needs cannot be met) Gallons Actual Use Given your inputted lawn size, these are your estimated irrigation requirements (values from Washington State Irrigation Guide) Rainwater Harvesting Water Usage & Storage (gallons) Select the city nearest where you live. This determines your precipitation and irrigation duties so try to choose a city with a similar climate. Fill in your own numbers in all green cells and view results under the blue highlighted rows below and graphs on other sheets - see details right of entry boxes for help. Desired Use Cistern Overflow (gallons) Precipitation varies locally even within a city, so be sure the precipitation on the Precip & Irrig Data sheet accurately reflects what you receive. If it doesn't, enter your own data there under the city nearest you and choose that city at left. See Avg Indoor Use sheet for help determining how much water you really need. A typical average use is 60 65 gpd per person, less with conservation. While a larger cistern is necessary to get you through the summer, more often than not it's the size of your roof that's the limiting factor. Try experimenting with different size combinations of roof and cistern to see what works best . If you are concerned about your cistern going dry in the summer, please see the blue safety factor consideration box bottom left. Yes No
  37. 37. Burnaby 4,000 0.092 20,000 Jan 20,000 5,111 0 0 Feb 20,000 3,761 29,127 31,967 Mar 20,000 3,359 Month Inches Need (gallons) 29,127 31,967 Apr 20,000 2,913 Apr 0 0 May 20,000 202 May 0.89 2,219 Jun 14,184 0 Jun 3.12 7,780 Jul 4,580 0 Jul 4.38 10,922 Aug 0 0 Aug 3.05 7,605 Sep 0 0 Sep 1.38 3,441 Oct 3,917 0 Oct 0 0 Nov 9,586 0 Dec 14,943 0 Total 12.8 31,967 Enter rainwater harvesting cistern storage capacity (gallons) Enter roof size in s.f. (assumes 100% roof dedicated to catchment and 80% or rain/snow that falls on roof is captured) If you see a "resize/reduce" message under the Gallons heading, your desired use is too high for the size of your roof/cistern. If you don't care if your cistern goes dry, change that setting above. Are you concerned if your cistern goes dry during the summer (is rainwater your sole source or is it a source augmentation)? If you are concerned, click yes. If not, click no. A yes entry will trigger a reduce/resize message below under Desired Use below if your cistern runs dry - this ensures your needs can be met. 2,232 Safety factor consideration: The box to the right shows your average monthly cistern levels. August/September is when Washingtonians have the lowest cistern levels due to the dry summer. If you're relying on rainwater for potable supply, you want to make sure that you don't let your cistern get too low during that time period as we don't always receive average precipitation every year. Your total indoor use Your total outdoor use Total annual use (indoor and outdoor use) Rainwater Harvesting Calculator Estimate household or building daily indoor use in gallons per day (gpd) Enter lawn in square feet that you want to keep green (1 acre = 43,560 s.f.) Month Cistern Volume Carryover (gallons) Above square foot of lawn converted to acre Given inputted indoor use and lawn size, this shows how much water you annually want to use and actually can use (indoor use is prioritized over outdoor use if all needs cannot be met) Gallons Actual Use Given your inputted lawn size, these are your estimated irrigation requirements (values from Washington State Irrigation Guide) Rainwater Harvesting Water Usage & Storage (gallons) Select the city nearest where you live. This determines your precipitation and irrigation duties so try to choose a city with a similar climate. Fill in your own numbers in all green cells and view results under the blue highlighted rows below and graphs on other sheets - see details right of entry boxes for help. Desired Use Cistern Overflow (gallons) Precipitation varies locally even within a city, so be sure the precipitation on the Precip & Irrig Data sheet accurately reflects what you receive. If it doesn't, enter your own data there under the city nearest you and choose that city at left. See Avg Indoor Use sheet for help determining how much water you really need. A typical average use is 60 65 gpd per person, less with conservation. While a larger cistern is necessary to get you through the summer, more often than not it's the size of your roof that's the limiting factor. Try experimenting with different size combinations of roof and cistern to see what works best . If you are concerned about your cistern going dry in the summer, please see the blue safety factor consideration box bottom left. Yes No
  38. 38. Rainwater Harvesting Rain Harvesting Above Ground Tanks ABOVE GROUND RW TANKS FREESTANDING RW WALL TANK Available in opaque Forest Green to block out sunlight and prevent algae growth inside the tank OR translucent White colour for indoor use. Available in 3 different sizes – all are 29” wide and designed to fit through a standard doorway and also fit nicely against walls and into corners while still providing a stable self-supporting base. Multiple large fitting locations (can be installed by BARR before shipping or easily on site as well by qualified personnel) Tanks can easily be linked together to increase capacity at any time Made from FDA and NSF approved PE resin, certified for potable water storage Most economical tank of its type available Durable, high quality rounded edge construction with long-term UV protection for many years of outdoor service. 41242-G SP0300-UT-G SP0250-UT-G SEE barrplastics.com for tank drawings
  39. 39. Rainwater Harvesting Rain Harvesting Above Ground Tanks SEE barrplastics.com for tank drawings & Part #’s The most economical style of tank available Available in opaque Forest Green and Black to block out sunlight and prevent algae growth inside the tank Additional fittings and accessories can be added and installed by BARR before shipping or done later on-site by qualified personnel Tanks can easily be linked together to increase capacity at any time Made from FDA and NSF approved PE resin, certified for potable water storage Durable, high quality rounded edge construction with long-term UV protection for many years of outdoor service LARGER ABOVE GROUND RW TANKS
  40. 40. Rainwater Harvesting Rain Harvesting Above Ground Tanks RAINWATER HOG - MODULAR TANK SYSTEM Build into Walls and Decks Build onto and into walls – can act as a thermal heat sink when built into internal walls Build beneath decks and crawl spaces or other tight unused spaces Each HOG is 50 USG (190 L) capacity - add and connect to achieve the desired capacity or easily expand capacity of existing installations. Comes with a 3” cutout area on either end and 4 – 1” mold-in, brass fittings (FNPT) 2 ea. on top & bottom Made from UV stable, FDA approved PE material - 100% recyclable - gain LEED points for your project Boldly Fits Where No Other Tank Has Fit Before
  41. 41. Rainwater Harvesting Rain Harvesting Above Ground Tanks L – SHAPED CORNER TANK Space saving - fits on or into corners of buildings Aesthetically pleasing Can be priming and painted to match building color scheme 95 USG Capacity Lightweight and easy to handle and install Can be linked with additional tanks Fits thru doorways Has 8” top access lid Comes with 4 – 3/4” fittings installed, with female pipe thread; 1 hose adapter with shut-off; 1 brass hose bib and 2 3/4” plugs. Includes an overflow device that can direct excess water to drain Can be plumbed additionally as required A wide variety of other fittings and accessories available 100 % Polyethylene and Recyclable Dimensions: 2’ x 2’ x 5’ high
  42. 42. Rainwater Harvesting Rain Harvesting External Filters & Strainers THE ORIGINAL RAIN HEADS LEAF EATER Economical, high flow rain head filtering device w/ stainless steel screen New self-shedding SS upgrade screen assy. now available Mosquito screen fitted with secure locking system Acts as a primary filtration device for keeping debris from entering the rain water tank or is ideal for use purely as a debris removing device even when rainwater is not being collected. Use in high rain areas Used together with large gutter outlets, the Leaf Eater allows for debris to be flushed out of the gutter and filtered from the rainwater catchment system LEAF BEATER Economical, high flow rain head filtering device w/ stainless steel screen Upgraded with new debris shedding single screen technology (Clean Shield ) Enhanced catchment efficiency - collect more rainwater Minimal maintenance Higher flow rate performance Compact design suits smaller spaces A single mosquito proof stainless steel mesh screen with 0.955mm aperture LEAF CATCHA Economical rain head filtering device w/ stainless steel screen Leaf Catcha is a catch-all” device to filter out debris in the rainwater while not allowing it to shed off and drop onto and dirty sidewalks and driveways Mosquito screen snaps securely into position Protects drainage system from clogging with leaves and such or acts as a primary filtration device for keeping debris from entering the rain water tank Use also in areas where there are few or no surrounding trees and lower rainfall. Fits both 3” 4” round downspout
  43. 43. Rainwater Harvesting Rain Harvesting External Filters & Strainers RAIN HEAD SELECTION CHART
  44. 44. Rainwater Harvesting Rain Harvesting First Flush Diverters GENERAL INFORMATION A First Flush Water Diverter prevents the first flush of rainwater, which may contain contaminants from the roof, from entering the tank / cistern or rain barrel. It then seals off the first flush chamber and automatically diverts the rainwater flow to the tank. This unique device empties itself of contaminated water and resets automatically. Improves water quality by reducing pollutants that are entering your tank/cistern or rain barrel’s Essential to protect pumps and internal appliances The amount of water diverted should be customized to specific requirements of each roof – ie: size and amount of contaminents. Reduces tank / cistern or rain barrel’s maintenance A simple automatic system that does not rely on mechanical parts or manual interventions Automatic slow release valve for emptying the first flush. It is optional to attach a hose to the first flush chamber to use the water for appropriate purposes – ie: irrigate a flower bed. Calculating the Amount of Water to be Diverted Amount of diverted water should be determined by the roof size and amount of pollutants. As a rule of thumb, the more water that is diverted, the better quality of water in the tank. The FIRST FLUSH WATER DIVERTERS are available in kit form and require standard 3”, 4” or 12” PVC pipe to create the diverter chamber section. The length of pipe used will vary depending on the volume to be diverted.
  45. 45. Rainwater Harvesting Rain Harvesting First Flush Diverters GENERAL INFORMATION Wet and Dry Systems Dry systems are where the pipes are designed to run directly from the gutter into the tank. The pipes empty after the rain stops and therefore does not hold water. Dry systems are best because water sitting idle in pipes can become stagnant and create a potential breeding ground for mosquitoes. Wet systems are where the pipes from the gutter go down the wall, run underground and then up into the tank. Wet systems are required in a number of building situations; as a result of the height of the building or the location of the rainwater tank. Water remains in the pipes, irrespective of rainfall, as the pipes are underground and below the entry point of the tank. Wet systems can be converted to Dry systems using In- Ground Water Diverters that automatically drain the underground system when the rainwater flow stops. PRODUCTS FOR HARVESTING YOUR OWN SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY
  46. 46. Rain Harvesting First Flush Diverters Rainwater Harvesting - IRST LUSH DIVERTER KITS 3” or 4” Diverter Chamber 3” & 4” FIRST FLUSH DIVERTER KITS First Flush Water Diverter – to fit 3 and 4 downspouts. A first flush water diverter (or roof washer”) takes the first flow of rainwater which may contain contaminants from the roof and gutters, seals it off and then automatically diverts the flow of cleaner water to the tank. This unique device slowly releases itself of contaminated water and resets automatically. Supplied in kit form – ust add the appropriate length of PVC pipe based on the quantity of water you wish to divert.
  47. 47. Rainwater Harvesting Rain Harvesting First Flush Diverters - WALL MOUNT - IRST LUSH DIVERTER KIT 12” FIRST FLUSH DIVERTER KITS Will manage single or multiple pipes coming from the roof to divert between and 38 gallons or more depending on height available. Appropriate support and restraint brackets must be provided by others and used to safely secure larger diverters such as these in place. Add a length of 12 pipe to the kit assembly to divert the appropriate amount of water – approx. USG / foot. (23 L) Includes a saddle and a galvanized steel wall mounting bracket
  48. 48. Rain Harvesting First Flush Diverters Rainwater Harvesting – IN-GROUND - IRST LUSH DIVERTER KIT 12” IN-GROUND DIVERTER KITS Great for installations where diverter needs to be protected from freezing and for situations where it is preferable to have the filtering devices, diverter and storage tank all hidden below ground. The In-Ground Diverter automatically drains the underground piping system once the flow of incoming water stops to create a Dry System” The In-Ground Diverter should be installed in minimum 5 degree (1:12) slope for BARR can pre-assemble these units for you as often it is difficult to source the 12” pipe. Stainless Steel eplacement Filter Contents of the 12” Diverter it ust add 12” dia. Sch.40 PVC Pipe and assemble
  49. 49. Rain Harvesting Tank Level Indicators Rainwater Harvesting TANK LEVEL MONITORS Rain Alert brings your tank levels inside your house for convenience. A safe easy wireless” tank water level monitor that intermediately displays your tank level on a LCD screen that can be located up to 5 feet away from the tank at any power point in your house. TA A9 model mainly for above ground tanks and the TA A9 for below ground tanks. TANK GAUGE LEVEL INDICATOR Monitoring your rainwater made easy The Rain Harvesting Tank Gauge is a rainwater tank level indicator which ensures you are able to tell how much water is in your tank at a glance. It is quick and easy to install. Suitable for all vented tanks / cisterns up to 100” in height. Features an easy to read dial with Empty” Full” Indicators and utilizes a reliable float system. ULTRASONIC LEVEL INDICATOR
  50. 50. Rainwater Harvesting Rain Harvesting Tank Accessories TANK ACCESSORIES AIR GAP BACKFLOW PREVENTER Backflow prevention for your rainwater tank/cistern overflow Removable mosquito screens for easy maintenance Provides a visual inspection point Fits 3” stormwater pipes Easy to install TANK TOP FILTER BASKET Fitted at the rain barrel or cistern/tank entry point to keep mosquitoes, pests and leaves out. 31 stainless steel mesh Virgin food grade polypropylene resin 10 year guarantee UV corrosion resistant. Remember - BARR Plastics supplies an extensive line of water handling products and accessories to complete your entire system and can create pre- assembled package and custom – modified components as well to meet most every need – so please contact on of Rainwater Specialists to assist with your component selection. Also - visit barrplastics.com PRODUCTS FOR HARVESTING YOUR OWN SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY
  51. 51. Rainwater Harvesting Rain Harvesting How to Create a Complete System
  52. 52. Contact Our Toll Free Customer Service 1(866)920-8265 Mon-Fri, 7am-5pm PST Home News Products Features & Benefits Advantages Literature Rebates Installation Video Terms to Know Gallery Contact PRODUCTS Rainwater Harvesting Round Tanks 205 Gallon Round Rain Tank 420 Gallon Round Rain Tank 660 Gallon Round Rain Tank 865 Gallon Round Rain Tank 1110 Gallon Round Rain Tank 1320 Gallon Round Rain Tank 2825 Gallon Round Rain Tank Accessories Solar Pump Kit First Flush Key Components Kit Bushman Tri Port Kit 530 Gallon Slimline Rain Tank Inquire about product Part# BSLT530e Product Description 530 Gallon Round Rain Water Tank Product Details Tank Dimensions Gallons: 530 Height: 6 feet, 6 inches Width: 7 feet, 2 inches Depth: 2 feet, 1 inches Strainer/Lid Diameter: 16 inches Overflow Diameter: 3 inches outer diameter Spec Sheet Download the Spec Sheet Instructions Right-Click and select, "save as" to download the Instruction Manual. Did you know? With every 1'' of rain on 1,000 square feet of roof area you can collect around 600 gallons! Overview Instructions Details Terms
  53. 53. The Rotunda as it is now: " unused gravel beds and social space"
  54. 54. : ! " Pool" Pool" Pool" Pool"
  55. 55. : ! " Pool" Pool" Pool" Pool" Bog" Bog"
  56. 56. : ! " Garden" Garden" Pool" Pool" Pool" Pool" Bog" Bog"
  57. 57. : "
  58. 58. Pool" Pool" Pool"Pool" Garden" Bog" Bog" Garden"
  59. 59. Pool" Pool" Pool"Pool" Garden" Bog" Bog" Garden" "
  60. 60. KEEP THIS HERE AS TEMPLATE"
  61. 61. Recycled Plastic 6 Benches:! lighter-weight ! recycled materials ! weather resistant" ULine:! $575/ea" Barco:$820/ ea! 6+$720/ea" 4 colours! " Barco: $700/ea, 6+ $613/ea! " Benches"
  62. 62. 6 Metal Benches:! heavier weight, ! resilient in all weathers" $1089/ea" 2 colours " Barco:" $1048/ea" 2 colours" $1147/ea" 8 colours" Benches"
  63. 63. Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems Report by Carolina B. Mendez Brigit R. Afshar Kerry Kinney, Ph.D. Michael E. Barrett, Ph.D. Mary Jo Kirisits, Ph.D. Texas Water Development Board P.O. Box 13231, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-3231 January 2010
  64. 64. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 5 Figure 4-1. Pilot-scale roofs. (From left to right: asphalt fiberglass shingle, Galvalume®, concrete tile) It is recommended that the first flush divert a minimum of ten gallons (gal) for every 1,000 square feet (ft2 ) of collection area (TWDB, 2005), where the collection area is the area of the roof footprint. Since the roof collection areas used in this task were approximately 30.4 to 36.6 ft2 (metal, shingle, and tile roofs: 7.6 ft by 4 ft; cool and green roofs: 6.56 ft by 5.58 ft), we diverted slightly more than 0.5 gal (2 liters [L]) to ensure that the minimum recommendation for first flush volume was met. The collection tank volumes were determined based on the estimation that 1 inch (in) of rain will result in 0.5 gal of collected water for every square foot of roof footprint area (TWDB, 2005). Therefore, we estimated that the metal, shingle, tile, and cool roof systems could collect at least 7.6 gal (about 28.8 L) for a 0.5-in rain event. Assuming 34% rainwater retention for the Type E green roof (Simmons et al., 2008), we estimated that the green roof could collect at least 6 gal (about 22 L) for a 0.5-in rain event. The average rainfall in the Austin area was approximately 1 in for the majority of rain events in 2009. To collect rainwater, the base of each roof was equipped with a sampling device that was inserted into an aluminum gutter (Figure 4-2). This insert consisted of a clean 3-in diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe (potable quality) cut lengthwise in half and fitted with end caps. Three-quarter-in diameter PVC pipe was used to direct the collected rainwater from the sampling insert to a passive collection system that consisted of a 2-L tank to collect the “first flush” and two 10-L polypropylene tanks in series to collect water after the first flush (henceforth called the first flush, first and second tanks). Once the capacity of the tanks was reached during a rain event, any additional rain exited the system through an overflow spout. In addition, the site was equipped with a separate sampler to collect ambient rainwater (without roof exposure) to assess background pollutant concentrations in the rainwater (Figure 4-3). This sampler consisted of an 18-in diameter polyethylene funnel attached to a 10-L polypropylene tank; the ambient sampler was kept closed until the night before a rain event. 18.4º
  65. 65. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 6 Figure 4-2. Sampling device for pilot-scale roofs. Figure 4-3. Ambient sampling device. The construction of three new pilot-scale roofs was completed on April 9, 2009. Samples were collected from rain events on April 18, 2009, June 11, 2009, July 23, 2009, and September 11, 2009 (Table 4-1). Samples were retrieved immediately after each rain event and analyzed in the laboratory. Between events, each sampling tank was thoroughly washed with Alconox detergent, rinsed thoroughly with deionized water, and autoclaved. The remaining pieces of the field sampler (e.g., PVC piping and funnel) were scrubbed and rinsed with deionized water on site.
  66. 66. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 7 Table 4-1. Description of rain events for pilot-scale roof studies. Date Rainfall (in) Temperature(°F) Number of preceding dry days 4/18/2009 1.4 63-82 4 6/11/2009 1.2 71-98 8 7/23/2009 1.1 74-101 14 9/11/2009 1.3 72-80 5 For the first 3 rain events, the ambient rain, first flush, and first and second tanks were analyzed in triplicate for pH, conductivity, turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), metals (total metals = dissolved + particulate), total coliform (TC), and fecal coliform (FC). Nitrate (NO3 - ) and nitrite (NO2 - ) were measured once for each sample. For the fourth rain event, the first flush and ambient rain samples were analyzed for pesticides and PAHs (Appendix: Table 9-3). Table 4-2 summarizes the analytical methods that were used, and Table 4-3 lists the preservation methods and storage times for each type of sample. Table 4-2. Analytical methods. Parameter Meter/method type Source pH Potentiometry Corning pH meter 230 Standard Methods (1998) Conductivity Radiometer Copenhagen conductivity MeterLab CDM230 Copenhagen radiometer Turbidity Hach turbidity meter model 2100A Hach (2003) TSS Filtration Standard Methods (1998) TC M-endo broth Standard Methods (1998) FC FC agar Standard Methods (1998) Nitrate Colorimetric; chromotropic acid Hach (2003) Nitrite Colorimetric; diazotization Hach (2003) EPA method 8507 PAHs and pesticides Methods SW8270 and SW8081/8082 (Appendix: Table 9-3) DHL Analytical Laboratories DOC Tekmar Dohrmann Apollo 9000 Standard Methods (1998) Metals Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry Standard Methods (1998) Table 4-3. Sample preservation and storage. Parameter Preservation Maximum holding time pH None required N/A Conductivity None required N/A Turbidity None required N/A TSS None required N/A TC Store at 4°C 6-8 hours FC Store at 4°C 6-8 hours Nitrate Acidify to pH < 2; store at 4°C 28 days Nitrite Store at 4°C 48 hours PAHs and pesticides Store at 4°C 7 days DOC Acidify to pH < 2; store at 4°C 14 days Metals Acidify to pH < 2; store at 4°C 14 days N/A: not applicable; analysis was conducted immediately. As an example rain event, the data from the April 18, 2009 event are shown graphically (Figures 4-4 through 4-15). Since pH, conductivity, turbidity, TSS, DOC, metals, TC, and FC were measured in triplicate, the average of the triplicate measurements (with error bars representing standard deviation or 95% confidence limits) are shown in the plots. Since single measurements
  67. 67. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 8 were made on each sample for nitrate and nitrite, no error bars are shown for those analytes. These average data from each rain event are tabulated (Tables 4-4 through 4-21) such that the minimum, median, and maximum values for the 3 rain events are shown. Figure 4-4 shows the pH of the harvested rainwater from the April 18, 2009 event, and Table 4-4 summarizes the median, minimum, and maximum pH values for the three rain events. The pH of the harvested rainwater increased from the first flush through the first and second tanks. The pH of rainwater is approximately 5.7 (TWDB, 2005), and our ambient rain samples had pH values from 5.5 to 6.7. For all rain events, the pH of the harvested rainwater was higher than that of ambient rainfall, ranging from 6.0 to 8.2. For all rain events, the rainwater harvested after the first flush2 from the tile roof consistently yielded higher pH values, while the metal and shingle roofs consistently yielded lower pH values. However, all pH values were in the near-neutral range. These values are comparable to other studies of harvested rainwater including Yaziz et al. (1989), which reported pH values of 5.9 to 6.9, and Simmons et al. (2001), which reported pH values of 5.2 to 11.4. Figure 4-4. pH in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs for April 18, 2009 event. Ambient rainwater had average pH=5.5. Error bars represent standard deviations from triplicate analyses. 2 It is most important to examine the quality of the rainwater harvested after the first flush since the first flush is diverted from use. Thus, the discussion in this report generally focuses on the harvested rainwater quality in the first and second tanks (Fig. 4-2).
  68. 68. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 9 Table 4-4. pH in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum-maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 6.6 (6.4-7.1) 6.7(6.7-6.9) 6.7(6.7-6.9) Metal 6.9(6.5-7.6) 6.7(6.6-6.8) 6.0(6.0-6.8) Tile 7.6(7.4-8.2) 7.7(7.5-8.1) 7.7(7.5-7.7) Cool 7.1(6.7-8.1) 7.2(6.7-8.0) 7.1(6.8-7.2) Green 7.3(7.3-7.6) 7.4(7.1-7.6) 7.5(7.0-7.5) Ambient rain 6.0(5.5-6.7) Figure 4-5 shows the conductivity of the harvested rainwater from the April 18, 2009 event, and Table 4-5 summarizes the median, minimum, and maximum conductivity values for the 3 rain events. The conductivity of the harvested rainwater decreased from the first flush through the first and second tanks. Conductivity values in the first flush through the second tank were higher in the April 18, 2009 rain event. For all rain events, rainwater harvested after the first flush from the metal roof yielded lower conductivity values as compared to the other roofing materials, while the green roof yielded higher conductivity values. Conductivity values in the ambient rain ranged from 18 microSiemens per centimeter ( Figure 4-5. Conductivity in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs for April 18, 2009 event. Ambient rainwater had average Error bars represent standard deviations from triplicate analyses.
  69. 69. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 10 Table 4-5. pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum- maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 221(170-344) 41(23-57) 34(18-47) Metal 86(55-167) 22(10-56) 14(9-31) Tile 73(68-413) 41(27-180) 39(18-139) Cool 100(84-184) 35(19-59) 25(11-53) Green 284(271-343) 253(118-336) 237(137-319) Ambient rain 23(18-61) Figures 4-6 and 4-7 show turbidity and TSS of the harvested rainwater from the April 18, 2009 event, and Tables 4-6 and 4-7 summarize the median, minimum, and maximum turbidity and TSS values for the 3 rain events. Turbidity decreased dramatically from the first flush through the first and second tanks, with final values of turbidity that were on the same order as that of ambient rain. Turbidity readings in the first flush through the second tank ranged from 2 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) to 105 NTU for all rain events, which are comparable to the 4 to 94 NTU reported in Yaziz et al. (1989). For all rain events, rainwater harvested after the first flush from the metal, tile, and cool roofs yielded higher turbidity values as compared to other roofing materials, up to 36 NTU, which might be attributed to their smoother surfaces. The lowest turbidity values were found in rainwater harvested after the first flush from the green roof, ranging from 3 NTU to 11 NTU, which is an indication that green roofs can effectively filter out particles. It is important to note, however, that all roofs yielded higher turbidity values than the 1 NTU maximum recommended for potable use of harvested rainwater (TWDB, 2006), which is the same as the USEPA’s guideline for filtered surface water (USEPA, 2009). In comparison to the turbidity values, similar trends were seen for TSS. TSS decreased dramatically from the first flush through the first and second tanks, with final values of TSS that were close to that of ambient rain. Yaziz et al. (1989) reported 53 to 276 milligram per liter (mg/L) TSS in harvested rainwater and 10 to 64 mg/L TSS in ambient rainwater. Our values were similar to these, with values of 1 to 118 mg/L TSS in the harvested rainwater after the first flush and 7 to 46 mg/L TSS in ambient rainwater. Similar to turbidity trends, the metal, tile, and cool roofs yielded higher TSS (4 to 118 mg/L) in the harvested rainwater after the first flush as compared to the other roofing materials, and green roofs yielded lower TSS (1 to 25 mg/L) in the harvested rainwater after first flush.
  70. 70. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 11 Figure 4-6. Turbidity in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs for April 18, 2009 event. Ambient rainwater had average turbidity=4 NTU. Error bars represent standard deviations from triplicate analyses. Filter system guideline adapted from USEPA, 2009. Table 4-6. Turbidity (NTU) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum- maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 33(20-41) 16(13-24) 11(8-14) Metal 96(56-102) 14(12-30) 8(7-9) Tile 51(44-64) 36(28-36) 6(2-9) Cool 67(63-105) 20(2-26) 6(2-13) Green 8(5-15) 6(4-11) 3(3-4) Ambient rain 4(4-8)
  71. 71. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 12 Figure 4-7. TSS in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs for April 18, 2009 event. Ambient rainwater had average TSS=7 mg/L. Error bars represent standard deviations from triplicate analyses. Table 4-7. TSS (mg/L) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum-maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 108(51-123) 44(16-54) 34(12-43) Metal 251(140-260) 71(44-87) 21(20-44) Tile 159(91-164) 70(16-80) 34(4-37) Cool 202(154-238) 93(67-118) 43(4-46) Green 22(14-32) 19(5-25) 5(1-15) Ambient rain 24(7-46) Figure 4-8 shows the nitrate concentrations in the harvested rainwater from the April 18, 2009 event, and Table 4-8 summarizes the median, minimum, and maximum nitrate concentrations for the 3 rain events. Nitrate concentrations decreased dramatically from the first flush to the first and second tanks. Nitrate concentrations in the rainwater harvested after the first flush ranged from 0 to 3.3 mg/L NO3 - -N for all rain events, which are below the USEPA drinking water maximum contaminant limit (MCL) of 10 mg/L NO3 - -N. Other studies reported higher nitrate
  72. 72. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 13 concentrations in harvested rainwater, including 420 mg/L NO3 - -N in anthropogenically influenced areas of Florida (Deng, 1998). Figure 4-8. Nitrate in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs for April 18, 2009 event. Ambient rainwater had nitrate=0 mg/L NO3 - -N. Table 4-8. Nitrate (mg/L NO3 - -N) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum- maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 5.4(4.7-5.4) 1.8(0.1-1.8) 0.8(0.0-1.4) Metal 2.8(1.1-3.7) 1.9(0.0-2.0) 0.9(0.0-1.8) Tile 3.6(2.9-3.7) 1.8(0.2-2.2) 1.3(0.0-1.3) Cool 4.7(1.1-4.8) 1.7(0.0-2.0) 1.3(0.0-1.5) Green 2.5(0.6-3.5) 1.8(0.0-3.3) 1.7(0.0-2.0) Ambient rain 1.4(0.0-2.4) Figure 4-9 shows nitrite concentrations in the harvested rainwater from the April 18, 2009 event, and Table 4-9 summarizes the median, minimum, and maximum nitrite concentrations for the 3 rain events. Similar to nitrate, the nitrite concentrations decreased from the first flush to the first and second tanks. Nitrite concentrations in rainwater harvested after the first flush ranged from 0.00 to 0.04 mg/L NO2 - -N, which are well below the EPA drinking water MCL for nitrite (1 mg/L NO2 - -N). In the April 18, 2009 rain event, only the first flush of the metal roof yielded a
  73. 73. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 14 nitrite concentration higher than the drinking water regulation; this was not reproduced in subsequent rain events, which showed 0.02 to 0.09 mg/L NO2 - -N in the first flush from the metal roof. Figure 4-9. Nitrite in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs for April 18, 2009 event. Ambient rainwater had nitrite=0.009 mg/L NO2 - -N. Table 4-9. Nitrite (mg/L NO2 - -N) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum- maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 0.09(0.07-0.21) 0.03(0.02-0.04) 0.02(0.01-0.03) Metal 0.09(0.02-1.13) 0.02(0.02-0.03) 0.02(0.01-0.02) Tile 0.05(0.02-0.24) 0.03(0.02-0.04) 0.02(0.02-0.03) Cool 0.08(0.02-0.34) 0.02(0.00-0.04) 0.01(0.01-0.03) Green 0.05(0.02-0.05) 0.02(0.01-0.04) 0.02(0.01-0.03) Ambient rain 0.01(0.00-0.02) Figure 4-10 shows the DOC concentrations of the harvested rainwater from the April 18, 2009 event, and Table 4-10 summarizes the median, minimum, and maximum DOC concentrations for the 3 rain events. DOC concentrations in the rainwater harvested after the first flush ranged from 2.3 mg/L to 37.3 mg/L. Most of the data showed that DOC concentrations decreased from the first flush through the first and second tanks. The shingle roof, however, showed an increasing
  74. 74. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 15 trend in DOC concentration from the first flush to the first tank, which was consistent in all rain events. The green roof consistently yielded the highest DOC concentration in the second tank, while the metal and cool roofs consistently yielded the lowest DOC concentration in the second tank. If the water were disinfected by chlorination prior to potable use, higher DOC concentrations (i.e., from the green roof) would be likely to produce higher concentrations of disinfection by-products. Figure 4-10. DOC in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs for April 18, 2009 event. Ambient rainwater had average DOC=4.7 mg/L. Error bars represent standard deviations from triplicate analyses. Table 4-10. DOC (mg/L) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum-maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 0.6(0.1-0.8) 11.3(10.2-15.4) 10.3(10.1-13.4) Metal 11.9(5.3-30) 3.1(2.8-11.4) 2.7(2.4-7.4) Tile 9.3(0.4-16.7) 4.5(3.3-11.6) 3.4(3.2-10.1) Cool 14.6(8.2-17.3) 8.7(2.4-14) 5.6(2.3-5.8) Green 18.2(17.6-35.3) 28.8 (13.5-37.3) 27.3(7.8-35.1) Ambient rain 4.4(3.4-4.7) Figures 4-11 and 4-12 show the TC and FC in the harvested rainwater from the April 18, 2009 event, and Tables 4-11 and 4-12 summarize the median, minimum, and maximum TC and FC for the 3 rain events. TC and FC counts decreased from the first flush to the first and second tanks.
  75. 75. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 16 The second tanks always had detectable TC and often had detectable FC, indicating that treatment would be needed prior to potable use. Green roofs showed lower coliform concentrations in harvested rainwater after the first flush for the first two rain events (April 18, 2009 and June 11, 2009), with TC concentrations from 7 to 12 colony forming units per one- hundred milliliters (CFU/100mL) and FC concentrations of <1 CFU/100mL. This was not true of the third rain event (July 23, 2009), which showed much higher coliform concentrations in the harvested rainwater from the green roof after the first flush; in that event, TC concentrations from 833 to 1300 CFU/100mL and FC concentrations from 270 to 390 CFU/100mL were observed. There is no clear explanation for the inter-event variability in FC and TC concentrations in the harvested rainwater from the green roof. Ambient rainwater for all rain events contained TC concentrations from 547 to 648 CFU/100mL and FC concentrations of 3 to 33 CFU/100mL. Another study (Yaziz et al., 1989) found no TC or FC in ambient rain collected in the open from one meter from the ground. Our ambient sample also was collected approximately one meter from the ground, but the sampler was left open overnight to collect early morning rain events. The higher TC and FC concentrations in our ambient sample may be due to overnight contamination, including airborne deposition or birds that might have visited the sampler. Figure 4-11. TC in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs for April 18, 2009 event. Ambient rainwater had average TC=648 CFU/100mL. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals from triplicate analyses.
  76. 76. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 17 Table 4-11. TC (CFU/100mL) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum- maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 2433(1500-2470) 800(506-1367) 256(177-733) Metal 767(450-1053) 550(167-770) 416(117-500) Tile 1517(1017-1680) 883(709-983) 567(293-783) Cool 1882(1767-3283) 917(540-1333) 226(150-867) Green 15(13-1233) 12(9-1300) 8(7-833) Ambient rain 550(547-648) Figure 4-12. FC in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs for April 18, 2009 event. Ambient rainwater had average FC=15 CFU/100mL. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals from triplicate analyses.
  77. 77. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 18 Table 4-12. FC (CFU/100mL) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum- maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof Type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 113(32-373) 83(10-87) 25(9-32) Metal 13(7-17) 4(<1-8) <1(<1-6) Tile 11(10-30) 9(5-20) <1(<1-8) Cool 35(25-38) 16(10-22) 7(6-8) Green <1(<1-550) <1(<1-390) <1(<1-270) Ambient rain 15(3-33) A total of 9 metals were analyzed in the harvested rainwater, including arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), selenium (Se), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), and aluminum (Al). Tables 4-13 to 4-21 summarize the median, minimum, and maximum metal concentrations for the 3 rain events, and they are compared with the USEPA MCLs or action levels in Table 4- 22. Most of the data showed that metal concentrations decreased from the first flush through the first and second tanks, with final metal concentrations that were close to those of ambient rain. As, Cd, and Se were often undetectable: 18 out of 48 samples were below the detection limit of <0.29 microgram per liter ( ) As, 20 out of 48 samples were below the detection limit of <0.14 Se, and 40 out of 48 samples were below the detection limit of <0.10 Cd. By contrast, Fe and Al concentrations in the harvested rainwater often exceeded EPA secondary MCLs for drinking water (Table 4-22). Metal concentrations in the harvested rainwater from our pilot-scale roofs were lower than values reported in other studies. For instance, Simmons et al. (2001) reported metal concentrations up to 4500 Cu (above USEPA action level), 140 Pb (above USEPA action level), and 3200 Zn from galvanized iron roofs. In addition, Chang et al. (2004) reported that more that 50% of the harvested rainwater samples from terra cotta clay and wood shingle roofs exceeded the secondary USEPA drinking water standard for Zn and the USEPA action level for Cu. A possible reason for the lower metal concentrations in rainwater harvested from our pilot-scale roofs is that they are relatively new materials in comparison to the roofs in other studies. Overall, as shown in Table 4-22, the rainwater harvested after the first flush from all pilot-scale roofs in our study did not violate any of the primary MCLs or action levels for metals.
  78. 78. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 19 Table 4-13. As ( ) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum-maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 1.40(0.86-4.20) <0.29(<0.29-0.67) 0.35(<0.29-0.65) Metal 0.91(0.58-0.97) <0.29(<0.29-0.34) <0.29(<0.29-0.30) Tile 0.84(0.53-2.69) 0.53(<0.29-1.33) 0.42(<0.29-0.50) Cool 0.68(0.49-1.06) <0.29(<0.29-0.42) <0.29(<0.29-0.17) Green 4.27(2.98-8.45) 7.75(4.01-7.92) 7.91(3.48-8.38) Ambient rain 0.14(0.12-0.27) Table 4-14. Cd ( ) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum-maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle <0.10(<0.10-0.14) <0.10(<0.10-<0.10) <0.10(<0.10-<0.10) Metal 0.17(<0.10-0.34) <0.10(<0.10-<0.10) <0.10(<0.10-<0.10) Tile <0.10(<0.10-0.20) <0.10(<0.10-<0.10) <0.10(<0.10-<0.10) Cool <0.10(<0.10-0.16) <0.10(<0.10-<0.10) <0.10(<0.10-<0.10) Green <0.10(<0.10-<0.10) <0.10(<0.10-<0.10) <0.10(<0.10-<0.10) Ambient rain <0.10(<0.10-<0.10) Table 4-15. Cr ( ) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum-maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 3.63(1.60-5.00) 0.20(0.17-1.70) 0.53(0.16-0.66) Metal 4.24(3.15-12.52) 0.44(0.29-1.61) 0.66(0.16-0.85) Tile 3.07(1.82-6.59) 1.10(0.48-2.93) 0.83(0.21-0.89) Cool 1.16(0.69-3.15) 0.53(0.28-0.57) <0.12(<0.12-0.44) Green 1.52(0.91-1.61) 0.82(0.46-1.94) 0.86(0.57-1.71) Ambient rain 0.26(<0.12-0.27) Table 4-16. Cu ( ) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum-maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 338.60(283.13-600.30) 34.44(24.43-45.75) 25.71(16.47-72.16) Metal 9.26(5.12-9.88) 2.51(1.01-4.84) 2.15(1.10-2.58) Tile 12.11(7.84-36.85) 4.99(3.82-19.05) 5.27(2.52-14.35) Cool 7.92(6.87-12.80) 2.98(1.54-5.16) 1.28(<0.63-2.11) Green 8.14(4.10-9.01) 6.07(4.97-6.98) 7.73(3.94-12.39) Ambient rain 0.98(0.68-11.70)
  79. 79. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 20 Table 4-17. Pb ( ) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum-maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 2.95(1.02-5.19) 0.85(0.37-0.87) 0.56(0.51-1.19) Metal 3.94(3.85-6.40) 1.02(0.37-1.08) 0.69(<0.12-2.27) Tile 7.54(3.22-13.62) 2.13(1.12-8.72) 1.29(0.49-2.89) Cool 4.97(4.66-11.51) 1.44(1.22-2.49) 0.56(0.50-1.28) Greena 8.79(6.22-39.69) 5.06(3.04-5.39) 3.52(1.72-4.22) Ambient rain 0.69(0.66-0.94) a Note: The elevated lead concentration might have come from the solder in the scupper gutter. Table 4-18. Se ( ) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum-maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 0.70(0.28-1.33) 0.16(<0.14-0.21) <0.14(<0.14-0.21) Metal 0.52(0.27-0.91) 0.21(<0.14-0.24) <0.14(<0.14-0.19) Tile 0.33(0.22-1.16) 0.22(<0.14-0.37) 0.17(<0.14-0.27) Cool 0.64(0.38-0.90) 0.16(<0.14-0.23) <0.14(<0.14-0.22) Green 0.39(0.30-0.39) 0.35(0.26-0.50) 0.30(0.28-0.50) Ambient rain 0.15(<0.14-0.16) Table 4-19. Fe ( ) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum-maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 1346.67(348.63-2105.00) 280.13(107.83-342.47) 272.33(201.40-480.93) Metal 1290.67(742.07-1687.67) 274.40(87.63-323.93) 222.20(40.94-563.00) Tile 1101.33(747.83-1488.33) 496.07(219.93-761.57) 230.43(75.57-364.47) Cool 1469.67(520.77-3535.00) 455.27(428.03-721.43) 118.97(114.13-341.80) Green 85.78(46.59-222.30) 54.47(44.29-78.61) 56.92(54.24-71.65) Ambient rain 270.80(193.70-1056.00)
  80. 80. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 21 Table 4-20. Zn ( ) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum-maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 112.63(82.12-160.57) 34.87(8.25-81.95) 28.22(20.90-84.77) Metal 753.50(665.57-852.13) 158.83(128.77-272.73) 118.47(77.46-362.13) Tile 262.80(228.07-542.47) 127.23(96.23-313.67) 91.27(55.60-118.17) Cool 347.20(271.43-483.33) 121.57(37.93-121.97) 45.45(41.49-98.70) Greena 347.70(286.40-786.37) 377.03(252.83-525.17) 308.13(248.83-353.27) Ambient rain 21.35(4.56-108.97) a Note: The elevated zinc might have come from the solder in the scupper gutter. Table 4-21. Al ( ) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs. Median (minimum-maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Shingle 1908.67(435.43-3349.00) 334.33(226.37-374.87) 310.43(230.23-717.80) Metal 1211.67(850.37-2049.67) 275.13(121.47-472.87) 337.67(73.97-554.87) Tile 1506.00(764.63-1780.00) 659.13(267.20-939.50) 318.03(139.77-532.13) Cool 1510.33(961.60-3756.00) 619.23(447.70-847.33) 151.73(150.90-513.17) Green 224.97(134.73-282.13) 154.57(149.17-182.07) 169.10(112.93-181.87) Ambient rain 350.83(157.80-558.83) Table 4-22. Comparison of metal concentrations ( ) in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs with MCLs. Metal Primary US g/L) Range of metal concentrations in first and second tanks of all roof types g/L) Arsenic 10 <0.29 to 8.38 Cadmium 5 <0.10 Chromium 100 <0.12 to 2.93 Selenium 50 <0.14 to 0.50 USEPA Action Level Copper 1300 <0.63 to 72.16 Lead 15 <0.12 to 8.72 Secondary US g/L) Iron 300 40.94 to 761.57 Zinc 5000 8.25 to 525.17 Aluminum 50-200 73.97 to 939.50 Figures 4-13, 4-14, and 4-15 show Al, Fe, Cu, Zn, Pb, and Cr concentrations in the harvested rainwater from the April 18, 2009 event. The As, Cd, and Se data are not presented graphically since more than half of the samples had concentrations below the detection limits. For all rain events, rainwater harvested after the first flush from the green roof consistently showed the lowest concentrations of Al, Fe, Cr, and Cu. For all rain events, the highest Zn concentrations were seen in the harvested rainwater after the first flush from the green and metal roofs; elevated Zn concentrations from the green roof might have been from the solder in the scupper gutter. For the April 18, 2009 rain event, Al and Fe concentrations were highest in the harvested rainwater
  81. 81. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 22 after the first flush from the tile roof; this was not consistent in the other rain events, which showed the highest Al and Fe concentrations in the harvested rainwater after the first flush from the shingle and cool roofs. For all rain events, the shingle roof showed the highest Cu concentrations. The April 18, 2009 rain event showed the highest Pb concentrations in the harvested rainwater after the first flush for the green roof; this was not representative of subsequent rain events, which showed lower Pb concentrations. For the green roof, elevated Pb concentrations might have been from the solder in scupper gutter. In general, the tile and metal roofs yielded the highest Cr concentrations in the harvested rainwater after the first flush, but the levels were very low (0.16 to 2.93 ); Cr was expected in the rainwater harvested from the tile and metal roofs since it is used as metallic coating and pigment for these roofs (Dofasco, 2007; MonierLifetile, 1999). Figure 4-13. Al and Fe in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs for April 18, 2009 event. Ambient rainwater had average Al=157.80 0 . Error bars represent standard deviations from triplicate analyses.
  82. 82. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 23 Figure 4-14. Cu and Zn in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs for April 18, 2009 event. Ambient rainwater had average Cu=0.68 Zn=21.35 . Error bars represent standard deviations from triplicate analyses. Figure 4-15. Pb and Cr in harvested rainwater from pilot-scale roofs for April 18, 2009 event. Ambient rainwater had average Pb=0.69 Cr=0.059 . Error bars represent standard deviations from triplicate analyses.
  83. 83. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 24 A total of 18 PAHs and 22 pesticides (Appendix Table 9-3) were analyzed in the ambient rainwater and first flush samples of the fourth rain event (September 11, 2009). Even with very low detection limits (on the order of 10 nanogram per liter [ng/L]), none of these synthetic organics were detected in the harvested rainwater. By comparison, other studies have detected PAHs and pesticides in ambient rainwater samples, at concentrations ranging from 6-165 ng/L (Basheer et al., 2003; Polkowska et al., 2000). 5 Task 3. Full-scale residential roofs Three full-scale roofs were sampled (in five-foot wide sections): a 12-year-old metal roof (Galvalume®, 22° slope with a 10-foot length) on a single-story residence, a 5-year old asphalt fiberglass shingle roof on a two-story residence (23° slope with 10-foot length, named Shingle 1), and a 5-year-old asphalt fiberglass shingle roof on a one-story residence (18° slope with a 12- foot length and increased overlying rooftop vegetation conditions as compared to the Shingle 1 roof, named Shingle 2). These sites allowed us to investigate the quality of rainwater harvested from aged, full-scale, residential roofs in the Austin, Texas area. Since the full-scale roofs were geographically separated, the quality of harvested rainwater was subject to various factors, including amount of vegetation, local contaminant sources, and rainfall intensity. The sampler gutter insert and the sampler design were similar to those described in Section 4 (Figure 4-2). Each of the residential roofs was sampled for three rainfall events (February 9, 2009, February 11, 2009, and March 11, 2009). Samples were retrieved immediately after each rain event and analyzed in the laboratory. Between events, each sampling tank was thoroughly washed with Alconox detergent, rinsed thoroughly with deionized water, and autoclaved. The remaining pieces of the field sampler (e.g., PVC piping and funnel) were scrubbed and rinsed with deionized water on site. For each roof, the following analyses were conducted in triplicate for the three rain events: TSS, TC, FC, total organic carbon (TOC), DOC, selected synthetic organic contaminants, and metals. Nitrate, nitrite, pH, turbidity, and conductivity were measured once for each sample. Analytical, preservation, and storage methods were followed as described in Section 4 (Tables 4-2 and 4-3), except for the synthetic organics. Two hundred synthetic organic compounds (listed in Appendix Table 9-4) were analyzed according to the USEPA method 8260/8270. As an example rain event, the data from the February 9, 2009 event are shown graphically (Figures 5-1 to 5-8). Since TSS, TOC, DOC, metals, TC, and FC were measured in triplicate, the average of the triplicate measurements (with error bars representing standard deviation or 95% confidence limits) are shown in the plots. Since single measurements were made on each sample for pH, conductivity, turbidity, nitrate, and nitrite, no error bars are shown for those analytes. These average data from each rain event are tabulated (Tables 5-1 to 5-13) such that the minimum, median, and maximum values for the 3 rain events are shown. Figure 5-1 shows the pH of the harvested rainwater from the February 9, 2009 event, and Table 5-1 summarizes the median, minimum, and maximum pH values for the 3 rain events. For the shingle roofs, the pH of the harvested rainwater increased from the first flush through the first and second tanks; a decreasing trend was seen in the metal roof, which was consistent in all rain events. The pH of rainwater is approximately 5.7 (TWDB, 2005), and our ambient rain samples had pH values from 5.4 to 6.3. In all rain events, the pH of the harvested rainwater was higher than that in ambient samples, ranging from 5.4 to 6.5. Our pH ranges are comparable to other
  84. 84. TWDB Report: Effect of Roof Material on Water Quality for Rainwater Harvesting Systems 25 studies including Yaziz et al. (1989), which reported pH values of 5.9 to 6.9 in harvested rainwater, Simmons et al. (2001), which reported pH values of 5.2 to 11.4 in harvested rainwater, and the pilot-scale roofs, which had pH values of 6.0 to 8.2 in the harvested rainwater.. Figure 5-1. pH in harvested rainwater from full-scale roofs for February 9, 2009 event. Ambient rainwater had pH= 5.4 to 6.3 (a range is reported since different ambient samples were analyzed for each of the three locations). Table 5-1. pH in harvested rainwater from full-scale roofs. Median (minimum-maximum) values for the three rain events are shown. Roof type First flush Tank 1 Tank 2 Metal 5.9(5.8-5.9) 5.9(5.5-6.3) 5.8(5.4-6.3) Shingle 1 5.9(5.8-6.0) 5.9(5.8-6.2) 6.0(5.8-6.2) Shingle 2 6.1(5.8-6.1) 6.2(5.9-6.5) 6.3(6.2-6.5) Ambient rain 5.9(5.4-6.3) Figure 5-2 shows the conductivity of the harvested rainwater from the February 9, 2009 event, and Table 5-2 summarizes the median, minimum, and maximum conductivity values for the 3 rain events. The conductivity of the harvested rainwater decreased dramatically from the first flush through the first and second tanks, with final conductivities that were similar to those of ambient rain. For all rain events, the rainwater harvested after the first flush had conductivity values ranging from18 µS/cm to 312 µS/cm. Similar to the metal roof in the pilot-scale study, the conductivity for the full-scale metal roof was usually lower than those of the shingle roofs. Conductivity values in our ambient rainwater samples ranged from 2

×