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
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
14. 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 (%)
15. 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
16. 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?
20. 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
21. 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
39. 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."
41. 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
42. 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
43. 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
44. 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)
45. 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)
46. 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
47. 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
48. 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
49. 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
50. 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
51. 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
52. 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
54. 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.
55. 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
56. 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.
57. 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
58. 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
59. 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
60. 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
62. 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
63.
64.
65. The Rotunda as it is now: "
unused gravel beds and social space"
76. 6 Metal Benches:!
heavier weight, !
resilient in all weathers"
$1089/ea"
2 colours "
Barco:"
$1048/ea"
2 colours"
$1147/ea"
8 colours"
Benches"
77. 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
78. 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
79. 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.
80. 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
81. 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).
82. 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.
83. 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.
84. 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)
85. 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
86. 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
87. 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
88. 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.
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. 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.
92. 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)
93. 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)
94. 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
95. 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.
96. 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.
97. 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
98. 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
