RAINWATER CATCHMENT AND SUSTAINABLE IRRIGATION SYSTEM JEFFERSON COMMUNITY CENTER AND PARK

ENGINEERING 492 CAPSTONE DESIGN SPRING 2013

Prepared by: Water Catchment Irrigation Action (WCIA) Consultants Justin Alipio, Ryan Flynn, Jordan Hardy, Zach Johnson Prepared for: Westside Community Improvement Association (WCIA) 5/3/2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
E1 INTRODUCTION
A design study to implement a rainwater catchment system and sustainable irrigation system was performed for the Jefferson Community Gardens and Park Project, which is located in the City of Eureka at 1000 B St. in Humboldt County, CA. The design team worked with the clients representing the Westside Community Improvement Association (WCIA) and Manhard for the project to develop three alternative solutions (with sub-alternatives) for rainwater catchment and sustainable irrigation techniques. This led to the development of a preferred alternative for the project based on the criteria and constraints of the project. The final preferred alternative was then evaluated based on its economics, hydraulics, hydrologic suitability, and a needed components analysis to develop recommendations for the project and determine the projects limitations. This objective fits the goals of our client, the WCIA, for their Jefferson Community Center and Park project. The Jefferson Community Center and Park (JCCP) project seeks to renovate the old Jefferson School to be used as a community center and local park. At the JCCP community member will be able to take educational classes and have a safe place to play and relax. The project also has a goal of becoming more sustainable and environmental friendly. The rainwater catchment system allow the JCCP to use a sustainable source of water for cultivating the gardens and park, as well as having dedicated signage that will help educate the community as to how they may create their own catchment system.

E2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES, CONSTRAINTS, AND CRITERIA

The objective of the project is to design a sustainable rainwater catchment and irrigation system that will help meet the total water demand of the onsite community gardens and park vegetation irrigation and help educate the community. The design will implement sustainable practices in water conservation, irrigation, and gardening based on the project constraints and criteria. Constraints were established to represent deign restrictions. The constraints of the project were found to be as follows: Grant requirements-the design must satisfy a high score sustainability criteria set by the Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) of Eureka for the WCIA and Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA) to maintain grant funding for the project development. Regulatory- the design must abide by all applicable city ordinances, stage regulations, and federal statutes. Footprint- the project must stay inside the bounds of the JCCP property. In addition the project cannot take up a portion of the project site such that it would be an inconvenience to the rest of the project. The criteria of the project were developed based on client input for the objectives of the project for the purpose of evaluating alternatives for selecting an optimal design by using a client weight (ranked 5 through 1 based on level of importance with 5 as high importance) for each criteria. The criteria for the project were as follows: Cost effectiveness Safety Aesthetics Educational value Ease of permitting

E3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTION
Alternatives were developed by taking into account the project objectives, constraints, criteria, available rainwater that can be collected and stored, and the water demand of the park and gardens (mostly based on the number, size, and placement of the storage tanks). Using the available rainwater collection roof area and the average effective rainfall, the potential rainwater that could be collected for the project area (minus the water that goes to the first-flush systems) was determined. Available locations for the tank system, including under the planned stage, excavated under the garden, or against the building. This restricted the amount of rainwater that could be collected, thus the total water demand for park and garden irrigation would not be able to be met. The following three alternatives with corresponding sub-alternatives were developed for the project: 1) Tank System Under the Stage A) 2 X 5,000 Gallon Tanks B) 20,000 Gallon Pillow Tank System (ES Figure 1)

ES Figure 1: 20,000 Pillow Tank under Stage 2) Tank System Under the Community Gardens A) 2 X 10,000 Gallon Tanks B) 2 X 5,000 Gallon Tanks (ES Figure 2)

ES Figure 2: Tanks located beneath the community gardens

ii

3) Tanks Against the Building A) 1,000 Gallon Rectangular Modular Tanks (ES Figure 3)

ES Figure 3: Rectangular tanks in series B) 530 Gallon Slim Tanks (ES Figure 4)

ES Figure 4: Slim tank against the building C) 55 Gallon Rain Barrel (ES Figure 5)

ES Figure 5: 55 gallon rainbarrel against the building

iii

D) Pipe Lattice Under the ADA Ramps (ES Figure 6)

ES Figure 6: Pipes beneath the ADA ramps The alternatives were then analyzed for major costs, minor costs, operation and maintenance costs, construction costs, and labor costs associated with each alternative. Cost was compiled based on components needed for the collection system, storage system, and irrigation systems for the park and gardens. Alternative lifecycle costs were performed based on different lifespans of components within each system (ES Figure 7). Based on the results our final selected design was chosen to be composed of a 20,000 gallon pillow tank, one slim tank, and one rain barrel, where here the slim tank and rain barrel are mainly for educating the public on how to implement water for at home use.
$100,000 $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0

Total Cost ($)

W/ Volunteer Labor

Labor Incl.

ES Figure 7: Capital costs and lifetime costs of selected alternatives using volunteer labor or labor. The Delphi Method was used to determine a preferred alternative based on project criteria. Each alternative was given a score between 1 and 10 for each of the criteria. This score was then multiplied by the criterias weight such that certain more important criteria influenced the score more highly than one of the minor criterion (ES Figure 8).

iv

ES Figure 8: Summary of the Delphi Method results.

E4 FINAL ALTERNATIVE

The final chosen alternative (ES Figure 9) utilizes: Gutter collection on existing building roof Wintering Tee to divert water from the down-spouts First Flush system to divert contaminated water from the collection system Collection/conveyance pipe around the perimeter of the building 20,000 bladder/pillow tank underneath the proposed stage 530 gallon slim tank on west-facing wall of building 55 gallon rain barrel on west-side entrance to Park Floating sensor in bladder tank Logic controller Pump to irrigation Drip irrigation for 3,500 ft2 of community/educational gardens Perforated Pipe irrigation for 1 acre of native turf-grass park/field Rain sensor Soil Moisture Sensor Irrigation Controller Educational and Safety signs

ES Figure 9: Final alternative diagram (GoogleSketchUp, 2013).

E5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF FINAL ALTERNATIVE

An economic analysis was performed on the final alternative. The costs of the system were split into the total cost of the rainwater collection system, the first-flush system, the tank/storage system, the garden irrigation system, and the park irrigation system components, labor, installation, and operations and maintenance costs (ES Figure 10). The capital cost and lifetime costs of the system with both volunteer labor and no volunteer labor can be seen in ES Table 1.
$2,155 $510

$4,998

$3,240

$7,138

Collection System ($) Tank System ($) Park Irrigation ($)

First Flush System ($) Garden Irrigation ($)

ES Figure 10: Economic analysis results of the preferred alternative.

vi

ES Table 1: Total system costs associated with the preferred alternative. Parameter Cost ($) Total Capital Cost w/volunteer labor Total Capital Cost w/o volunteer labor Lifetime Cost w/ volunteer labor Lifetime Cost w/o volunteer labor 18,796 25,591 53,754 59,231

E6 HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS OF FINAL ALTERNATIVE

A hydraulic analysis of the irrigation system to the community gardens and park was performed using EPANet 2.0 to model pump size, pipe diameters, lengths, and pressures associated with the irrigation system. Nodes within the program represented the different garden beds and park perforated pipes. Nodes furthest from the pumps (furthest garden bed and park perforated pipes) were found to reach optimal pressures around 30 to 40 psi in order to reach the needed pressures for each emitter in the system. Mainline diameters were determined to be optimal at 2 to obtain this optimal pressure at the furthest nodes from the pump (ES Figure 11).

ES Figure 11: EPANET 2 layout of nodes and hand calculations A hydrologic analysis was performed on the system using average precipitation and the total water demand for the parks and gardens to determine how fast the storage tank filled and how long the stored rainwater would last during demand periods. Using the total water demand from the park and the gardens the storage tank will last an average of 38 days with 150 days where irrigation will need to be supplemented by city water (ES Figure 12). If only the garden demand is taken into

vii

account for irrigation the stored water will last 83 days with only 105 days that will need to be supplemented by city water (ES Figure 13).
20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 1 51 101 151 201 251 301 351 0.30

Water Volume (gal)

10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

Julian Day
Precipitation (in) Tank Storage (gal) Total Demand (gal)

ES Figure 12: Shows total water demand, local precipitation and tank storage.
20,000 18,000 16,000 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00

Water Volume (gal)

14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

101
Precipitation (in) Garden Water Demand

201
Julian Day

301
Tank Storage (gal) Tank Storage - Garden Only

ES Figure 13: Shows water demand for the garden only, local precipitation and tank storage.

viii

Precipitation (in)

Precipitation

12,000

(in)

E7 LIMITATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The preferred alternative had the following limitations and recommendations: Limitation: Storage capacity-not able to meet the total water demand for the park and garden irrigation. Recommendation: Could use space beneath community gardens for additional storage capacity for increased performance. Limitation: Groundwater-not taken into account when calculating water demand for parks and garden irrigation nor the impacts groundwater may have on vegetation. Recommendation: Perform a groundwater study of the project site. Limitation: Humboldt County precipitation season-precipitation is mostly during offseason when there is little to no water demand resulting in a quick filling of the storage tanks and a quick depletion during period of water demand for irrigation purposes. Recommendation: Use stored rainwater for flushing toilets at the childcare center during off-season. Limitation: Existing underground piping system-may impact installation of system. Recommendation: Preform a study on the existing underground piping system to determine installation issues that may result.. Limitation: Amount of days that stored rainwater can be used before the tank is drained. Recommendation: Only use water demand for the community gardens for irrigation purposes or limit irrigation to park.

These limitations and recommendations will need to be taken into consideration during installation of the preferred alternative.

E8 CONCLUSION
The rainwater catchment and sustainable irrigation project is a successful alternative in that it fulfills the grant requirements and educational concerns of the JCCP project. The final alternative demonstrates an educational value for homeowners with the rain barrel system, an commercial business educational value with the slim tank, and an industrial educational value with the pillow tank. Overall, the project falls short of providing all necessary water for the gardens and park, but can still be considered successful at meeting its other specified objectives. With the suggested recommendations to the project the performance of the system may be improved.

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge our client, Ms. Heidi Benzonelli, for her help, input, and enthusiasm. Thank you to Dr. Eileen Cashman and Dr. Annjanette Dodd for their constant guidance and support throughout the design process of this project. Also, we would like thank Praj White from Manhard Consulting, LTD., Dr. Margaret Lang, and Dr. Beth Eschenbach for their contributions to the project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. i E1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... i E2 Project Objectives, Constraints, and Criteria ...................................................................................................... i E3 Alternatives Selection................................................................................................................................................. ii E4 Final Alternative ............................................................................................................................................................ v E5 Economic Analysis of Final alternative .............................................................................................................. vi E6 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis of Final Alternative ............................................................................ vii E7 Limitations/Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ ix E8 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................................. x 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Objective, Constraints, and Criteria .............................................................................................. 1 2 Background ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Site Description ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Location .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 History............................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1.3 Current Conditions..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 2.4.1 Climate ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 2.4.1.1 Precipitation .......................................................................................................................................... 10 2.4.1.2 Evaporation and Transpiration ..................................................................................................... 11 2.4.2 Groundwater .............................................................................................................................................. 14 2.4.3 Other On-Site Water Sources ............................................................................................................... 14 2.5 Sustainable Irrigation in Urban Settings .................................................................................................. 15 2.6 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................................................. 15 2.7 Background Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 16 3 Project Site Water Demand Analysis ................................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Calculating Water Demand............................................................................................................................. 17 4 Rainwater Catchment and Irrigation Components ........................................................................................ 19 4.1 Gutters and Screens/Guards ......................................................................................................................... 19 4.2 Pipe Material ........................................................................................................................................................ 20 4.2.1 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) ....................................................................................................................... 20 4.2.2 High Density Poly Ethylene (HDPE) ................................................................................................. 21 4.3 First-Flush Diverters ......................................................................................................................................... 21 4.4 Wintering Tee and Air Gap ............................................................................................................................. 22 4.5 Water Storage Tanks......................................................................................................................................... 23 4.5.1 Fiberglass ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 4.5.2 Polypropylene ............................................................................................................................................ 23 4.5.3 Wood .............................................................................................................................................................. 23 4.5.4 Metal .............................................................................................................................................................. 23 4.5.5 Concrete........................................................................................................................................................ 23 4.5.6 Rain Barrels................................................................................................................................................. 24 4.5.7 Brick ............................................................................................................................................................... 24 4.5.8 Other Materials .......................................................................................................................................... 24 4.6 Irrigation Controllers........................................................................................................................................ 25

xi

8 9

4.7 Soil Moisture Sensors (SMS) .......................................................................................................................... 25 4.8 Rain Sensors ......................................................................................................................................................... 27 4.9 Drip Irrigation Systems ................................................................................................................................... 27 4.9.1 Valves............................................................................................................................................................. 28 4.9.2 Backflow Preventer and Pressure Regulator ................................................................................ 28 4.9.3 Filter ............................................................................................................................................................... 28 4.9.4 Emitters and Piping ................................................................................................................................. 28 4.9.5 Air vent, flush valve, and end cap....................................................................................................... 29 Alternative Designs ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 5.1 Common Components and Cost Assumptions ....................................................................................... 29 5.2 Alternative 1: Tank System Under The Stage ........................................................................................ 34 5.2.1 Alternative 1a: Two Tanks in series ................................................................................................ 34 5.2.2 Alternative 1b: Pillow Tank................................................................................................................. 35 5.3 Alternative 2: Tank System Under The Gardens .................................................................................. 36 5.3.1 Alternative 2a: One 10,000 Tank ...................................................................................................... 36 5.3.2 Alternative 2b: Two 5,000 Gallon Tanks ....................................................................................... 38 5.4 Alternative 3: Tank System Against Community Building ............................................................... 39 5.4.1 Alternative 3a: Three 1,000 Gallon Rectangular Tanks ............................................................ 39 5.4.2 Alternative 3b: Six 530 Gallon Slim Tanks .................................................................................... 40 5.4.3 Alternative 3c: 55 Gallon Rain Barrel.............................................................................................. 42 5.4.4 Alternative 3d: Pipe System Under ADA Ramps......................................................................... 43 Selection of Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................... 44 6.1 Cost Effectiveness .............................................................................................................................................. 44 6.2 Safety ....................................................................................................................................................................... 46 6.3 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................................. 47 6.4 Educational Value .............................................................................................................................................. 47 6.5 Ease of Permitting .............................................................................................................................................. 47 6.6 Final Selected Alternative ............................................................................................................................... 47 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................................................. 48 7.1 Design of Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................... 48 7.1.1 Description of Parts ................................................................................................................................. 48 7.1.2 Description of Installation .................................................................................................................... 49 7.2 Analysis of Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................ 52 7.2.1 Hydraulic Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 52 7.2.2 Hydrologic Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 57 7.2.3 Economic Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 59 7.2.4 First-Flush System Analysis ................................................................................................................. 64 7.3 Operation and Maintenance Required ...................................................................................................... 66 7.4 Limitations and Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 66 References....................................................................................................................................................................... 68 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................................... 71 9.1 Appendix A: Technical Definitions ............................................................................................................. 71 9.2 Appendix B: Alternative Research ............................................................................................................. 71 9.3 Appendix C: Water Demand Calculations ............................................................................................... 72 9.4 Appendix D: Delphi Decision Matrix ......................................................................................................... 73 9.5 Appendix E: Hydraulic analsis Equations ............................................................................................... 74

xii

LIST OF FIGURES
ES Figure 1: 20,000 Pillow Tank under Stage ............................................................................................................. ii ES Figure 2: Tanks located beneath the community gardens .............................................................................. ii ES Figure 3: Rectangular tanks in series ...................................................................................................................... iii ES Figure 4: Slim tank against the building ................................................................................................................ iii ES Figure 5: 55 gallon rainbarrel against the building .......................................................................................... iii ES Figure 6: Pipes beneath the ADA ramps ................................................................................................................. iv ES Figure 7: Capital costs and lifetime costs of selected alternatives using. ................................................ iv ES Figure 8: Summary of the Delphi Method results. ............................................................................................... v ES Figure 9: Final alternative diagram (GoogleSketchUp, 2013). ..................................................................... vi ES Figure 10: Economic analysis results of the preferred alternative. ........................................................... vi ES Figure 11: EPANET 2 layout of nodes and hand calculations ...................................................................... vii ES Figure 12: Shows total water demand, local precipitation and tank storage. ...................................... viii ES Figure 13: Shows water demand for the garden only, local precipitation and tank storage. ........ viii Figure 1: The Jefferson Community Center and Park.4 Figure 2: Image of broken windows on the main school building ..................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Images of current maintenance operations at the project site (Benzonelli, 2013). ................ 6 Figure 4: Aerial image of current structures at the Jefferson project site (Google Inc., 2013). ............. 7 Figure 5: Map of closest faults and fault zones to the Jefferson Community ................................................. 8 Figure 6: Geologic map of Eureka and nearby cities (Google Inc., 2013) (USGS, 2012b). ........................ 9 Figure 7: Map showing the relative location of the Woodley Island NWS and NOAA ............................. 10 Figure 8: Intensity-duration curve for Eureka, CA using 14 point precipitation ...................................... 11 Figure 9: EToZones map for the state of California (CIMIS, 2013). ................................................................. 12 Figure 10: Site 193, Monterey's Daily Evapotranspiration Data (WRCC, 2013). ....................................... 13 Figure 11: Retaining wall damaged by excess amounts of rainwater runoff (Benzonelli, 2013). ...... 14 Figure 12: Example of a standard roof top gutter system downspout (Benzonelli, 2013). .................. 15 Figure 13: Shown above is a gutter fitted with a metal screen (or guard) ................................................... 19 Figure 14: (Left) Simple standpipe first-flush diverter. (Right) Ball valve first ........................................ 22 Figure 15: Wintering tee that would be attached to a downspout (GROWNYC, 2008). .......................... 22 Figure 16: Example of an irrigation system controller with input panel ...................................................... 25 Figure 17: An example of a wireless soil moisture sensor and controlle...................................................... 26 Figure 18: An example of a rain sensor (Rain Bird Corp., 2013). ..................................................................... 27 Figure 19: The basic components of a drip irrigation system (Stryker, 2013). ......................................... 28 Figure 20: Shown above is the drip line configuration for each 5ft x 20ft garden bed at the JCCP.... 31 Figure 21: Diagram of the components making up Alternative 1a-Two Tanks in Series. ...................... 34 Figure 22: Diagram of the rainwater catchment system, featuring the m .................................................... 37 Figure 23: Main components of Alternative 2b-Two 5,000 Gallon Tanks Below Gardens. ................... 38 Figure 24: Profile view of Alternative 3a-Three 1,000 Gallon Rectangular Tanks Next to Building. 40 Figure 25: Example diagram of Alternative 3b-Six 530 Gallon Slim Tanks Next to the Building. ...... 41 Figure 26: Diagram of Alternative 3c-55 Gallon Rain Barrel Next to Building. .......................................... 42 Figure 27: Diagram of tank placement for the final alternative......................................................................... 50 Figure 28: Diagram of the layout of the underground 2 inch water ................................................................ 51 Figure 29: Diagram of the layout of the underground 2 inch water distribution ....................................... 52 Figure 30: Diagram of garden hydraulic analysis system using EPANet 2.0 ................................................ 53 Figure 31: Pump performance curve of a 5X3-6 pump with a speed of 870 rpm .................................... 55 Figure 32: Tank head versus time hydraulic analysis results from EPANet 2.0. ........................................ 56 Figure 33: Tank pressure versus time results from the hydraulic.................................................................... 56 Figure 34: Pressures during period of water demand at bed 35 ....................................................................... 57 Figure 35: Hydrologic analysis of park and community gardens using a wet water year. ..................... 58

xiii

Figure 36: Hydrologic analysis of the park and community gardens using an average water year. .. 58 Figure 37: Hydrologic analysis of the park and community gardens using a dry water year. .............. 59 Figure 38: Hydrologic analysis using only the garden demand using an average water year. ............. 59 Figure 39: Aerial view of divided roof areas and downspout locations for the first-flush analysis. .. 65

LIST OF TABLES
ES Table 1: Total system costs associated with the preferred alternative. .................................................. vii Table 1: List of criteria for the Jefferson Rainwater and Sustainable Irrigation Project..3 Table 2: Average monthly and annual precipitation data taken from the Eureka .................................... 11 Table 3: Average monthly and annual evapotranspiration data for Zone 1 ................................................ 13 Table 4: Typical planting schedules on the Humboldt County Coast (Appropedia, 2013). ................... 17 Table 5: Shown below are costs of locally available gutters and gutter ........................................................ 20 Table 6: Shown below are costs of various PVC piping components .............................................................. 20 Table 7: Shown below are costs of some HDPE pipes of different sizes........................................................ 21 Table 8: Typical capacities and advantages/disadvantages for different storage tank material ....... 25 Table 9: Soil moisture sensor costs (Cardenas-Lailhacar, Dukes, & Shedd, 2013). .................................. 26 Table 10: Shown below are prices for common components in a drip irrigation system ..................... 29 Table 11: Shown below are names and pricing of components common to every system. .................. 30 Table 12: Shown below are the components used in the JCCP drip irrigation system ........................... 32 Table 13: Shown below are the components used in the JCCP field irrigation ........................................... 33 Table 14: Shown below are the estimated lifespans and costs of the various ............................................ 34 Table 15: Shown below is the cost analysis of Alternative 1a-Two Tanks in Series Under Stage. ..... 35 Table 16: Shown below is the resulting cost analysis of Alternative 1b-Pillow Tank Under Stage. .. 36 Table 17: Shown below is a table including a cost analysis of Alternative 2a. ........................................... 38 Table 18: Shown below is the cost analysis of Alternative 2b. .......................................................................... 39 Table 19: Cost analysis of Alternative 3a.................................................................................................................... 40 Table 20: Cost analysis of Alternative 3b-Six 530 Gallon Slim Tanks Next to Buliding. ......................... 41 Table 21: Cost analysis result of alternative 3c-55 Gallon Rain Barrel Next to Building. ...................... 43 Table 22: Shown below are the cost analysis results of Alternative 3d-Pipe Lattice ................................ 44 Table 23: Criteria and client weights used for the selection of a final design. ............................................ 44 Table 24: Summary of capital costs and lifetime costs for each alternative design. ................................ 45 Table 25: Advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and thei .......................................................... 46 Table 26: Summary table of parts required to construct the preferred alternative ................................. 49 Table 27: Assumptions and resulting calculations for the hydraulic ............................................................. 54 Table 28: Pump performance curve values used in EPANet for the hydraulic ............................................ 55 Table 29: Cost analysis of the rainwater collection system from the gutters to the storage tank. ...... 60 Table 30: Cost analysis of the first-flush systems. ................................................................................................... 60 Table 31: Cost analysis of the storage tank system. ................................................................................................ 61 Table 32: Cost analysis of the garden irrigation system. ...................................................................................... 62 Table 33: Cost analysis of the park irrigation components. ................................................................................ 63 Table 34: Cost of the preferred alternative and the total system cost. ........................................................... 63 Table 35: The capital cost, lifetime cost, and cost per gallon of the system .................................................. 64 Table 36: Results of the first-flush analysis to determine the size of pipes necessary ........................... 66 Table 37: A summary of the Limitations and Recommendations of the system ......................................... 67

xiv

LIST OF ACRONYMS
WCIA RCAA OGALS JCCP RM-1000-AR PQP CIMIS ETo IDF ERK NOAA CDWR PQP HDR PVC HDPE SMS Westside Community Improvement Association Redwood Community Action Agency Office of Local Grants and Services Jefferson Community Center and Park Multi-Family Residential Housing Public/Quasi-Public Zoning California Irrigation Management Information System Evapotranspiration Intensity Duration Frequency Eureka Woodley Island Station National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration California Department of Water Resources Public/Quasi-Public High Density Residential Polyvinyl Chloride High Density Polyethylene Soil Moisture Sensor

xv

INTRODUCTION

This section provides a description of the rainwater catchment and sustainable irrigation project within the Jefferson Community Center and Gardens. This section will also describe the project objective, constraints, and criteria used for the design process.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Jefferson Project (project), located in the City of Eureka at 1000 B Street in Humboldt County, CA, will convert 2.4 acres of existing land into a community center and park by creating community gardens and green space with the use of sustainable techniques. The project seeks to renovate the old Jefferson Elementary School so that members of the surrounding community will be able to take educational classes, have a safe place to play and relax, and learn sustainable techniques that can be implemented for household, commercial business, and industrial business use. The Westside Community Improvement Association (WCIA) and the Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA) (both non-profit organizations) were awarded $3.3 million in grant funding by the California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Local Grants and Services (OGALS) to develop the Jefferson Community Center and Park (JCCP) when they purchased the former Jefferson Elementary school (closed in 2005) to provide and improve the needs of the Eureka community. Based on the OGALS grant funding criteria, the project is expected to utilize techniques such as rainwater catchment, sustainable irrigation, organic gardening, and an energy efficient design for new buildings. Project construction is expected to start in June 2013 and complete in May 2014. The existing structures on the project site includes: two large buildings, two portable buildings, a shed, a playground, and a paved blacktop playground with basketball courts. The project will convert 0.72 acres of existing asphalt into green space consisting of gardens, a tree-shaded park, and a large grass field. The basketball courts as well as the large school buildings will be remodeled. The portable buildings and shed will be removed and a bocce court will be constructed. A library and community garden will be included in the project as well as a childrens playground and 17 additional pervious parking spaces. The impervious surfaces (asphalt) are proposed to be converted into pervious surfaces to improve infiltration and reduce runoff. Non-invasive native trees and plants will be used to improve the soil quality, reduce irrigation demand, and improve the aesthetics of the area (Manhard, 2012).

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVE, CONSTRAINTS, AND CRITERIA

The objective of this project is to design a sustainable rainwater catchment and irrigation system to meet the water demand of onsite community gardens and park vegetation, this will reduce irrigation demand and help the project reach its sustainability goals. This system will demonstrate educational sustainable practices in water conservation, irrigation, and gardening. The implemented design will be chosen based on numerous project constraints and criteria specified by the client.

Designed systems must follow specific constraints to satisfy the objective of the project. Alternatives for the proposed project must abide by the following constraints: The design must remain within the project site footprint and available space. The design must satisfy a high score sustainability criteria set by OGALS for the WCIA and RCAA to maintain grant funding for the project development. The design will not have any open water for safety purposes as set by the client. The design must abide by all applicable city ordinances, state regulations, and federal statues including the following: o Uniform Plumbing Code o AB 275/Rainwater Collection Act 2011 o 2010 California Green Building Standard Codes Section o 2010 California Building Code, Title 24 o 2010 California Historic Building Code, Part 8 Criteria are which design alternatives can be judged for the optimal design. With consultation of the client, project criteria aid in the comparisons of alternative designs (Table 1). The project criteria were decided upon based on the relevance to this project. These criteria include cost, safety, aesthetics, educational value, and ease of permitting. When deciding a final alternative, each possible alternative is evaluated based on these criteria.

Table 1: List of criteria for the Jefferson Rainwater and Sustainable Irrigation Project. Weights are assigned from 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest or more important. Method of Method of Client Team Final Criterion Description Comparison Measurement Weight Weight Weight Lowest cost, Net Present Cost and ease of value of the present worth Cost operation, and system over analysis for 5 5 5 Effectiveness greatest water an expected designed savings are 30 lifetime. system lifetime. preferred. Provides a safe California child Minimize the environment care center use of for a public regulations and potentially Safety school setting irrigation 4 5 4 dangerous and reused system safety components is water is safe regulations and preferred. for edible concerns. crops. Designed Percent of system blends Net park positive well with Aesthetics beautification feedback from 4 3.5 4 surrounding gain. client and park community. environment. The system teaches and Public encourages interaction Best positive Educational sustainable opportunities feedback from 5 2.5 4 Value irrigation for sustainable client and techniques to education is community. the preferred. community. Time it takes to The simplicity obtain of necessary implementing Least need for permits. Ease of the project in design permits Amount of 3 2.5 3 Permitting regards to is preferred. permits obtaining required for necessary each permits. alternative.

BACKGROUND

In order to understand how to implement and select how the project will function, background information must be gathered. This background information will help define our project so that it fits the conditions and history of the site, ensuring a better end product.

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The site description has three major components. The location of the site helps define how the site is located spatially and helps determine how surrounding areas may affect the site. The site history helps describe the projects past, such that relevant information can be gathered to help conceptualize the end product. Finally, the current conditions allow for the gathering of current data and help define the state that the site is now in.

2.1.1 LOCATION
The JCCP is located at 1000 B Street, Eureka, CA 95501 (Figure 1). The project location is bounded by Clark Street to the south, A Street to the west, B Street to the east, and Washington Street to the north. The community center and park is located approximately 0.3 miles south of Highway 101.

Figure 1: The Jefferson Community Center and Park located at 1000 B Street Eureka, CA (Google Earth, 2013).

2.1.2 HISTORY
The project site is the former Jefferson Elementary School and playground. The school was started in the late 1800s. Gradual renovations and additions included a paved school playground, two large school buildings, two portable buildings, restrooms, walkways, fencing, and a storage shed. The school was closed in 2005 and the play equipment was removed. In 2010, the City of Eureka Council voted to convert the former school into a public park and community recreation facility. The WCIA, an organization that works to increase recreational, educational, and vocational projects in areas where they are lacking, became the successful bidder and buyer for the site in July 2011.

On April 12, 2012, the WCIA and RCAA were awarded $3.3 million in grant funding money by the OGALS and are currently working to develop the project site into the JCCP (Manhard, 2012).

2.1.3 CURRENT CONDITIONS

The Jefferson Community Center and Park (JCCP) is classified as public/quasi-public (PQP) land according to the City of Eurekas General Plan. Surrounding adjacent land use includes high density residential (HDR), commercial, and a multi-family residential zoning classification of RM-1000-AR under the City of Eurekas zoning classifications. The site can be used for a park, playground, public recreation, public buildings, and grounds (City of Eureka General Plan, 2008). Before the project site was purchased by the WCIA in July 2011, the school and schoolyard was left abandoned since its closure in 2005 and suffered structural damage, broken windows, and graffiti due to a lack of maintenance (Figure 2). The WCIA, RCAA, and community volunteers are currently maintaining the project site, including asbestos removal inside the building, landscaping, lawn care, and room renovations (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Image of broken windows on the main school building facing southeast (Benzonelli, 2013).

Figure 3: Images of current maintenance operations at the project site (Benzonelli, 2013). Existing structures include two portable buildings, an outdoor shed, and two main buildings that will serve as a community center and school. During reconstruction of the site, the two portable buildings and outdoor shed are expected to be completely removed. The schoolyard is fully paved with exception of the public playground. The playground and basketball courts remain open to the public during park daylight hours (Figure 4). Current operations of the project site include community planning and meetings as well as event classes such as drumming (Benzonelli, 2013).

1 2

3 4 5

9 8 8

N
1. Northeast playground 4. South portable building 7. Basketball courts 2. Community center 5. Shed 8. Paved blacktop 3. School 6. North portable building 9. Playground Figure 4: Aerial image of current structures at the Jefferson project site (Google Inc., 2013).

2.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Potential seismic activity, soil types, and fault zones within the project site will have an impact on any design decisions made for the JCCP site. Ground shaking from an earthquake can cause damage on the project site to infrastructure such as pipes, water storage tanks, irrigation systems, buildings, and park features. The extent of structural damage from ground shaking is dependent on factors such as the soil type, building structure design, and the duration and intensity of the fault movement (Manhard, 2012). Earthquakes have cost California over $55 billion in losses since 1971, with greater losses in major urban areas. Building codes greatly reduce damage costs but are only intended to prevent the loss of life by keeping buildings from collapsing (D. Branum, 2008). Humboldt County is located in a seismically active area of California and is within the two highest risk zones according to the California Uniform Building Code. Southwest of Eureka, the area offshore Cape Mendocino has the highest concentration of earthquake events in the United States. The area near Cape Mendocino is where three different tectonic plates meet: the Pacific Plate, the Gorda Plate, and the North American Plate. This complex area of seismic activity is known as the Mendocino Triple Junction (Humboldt County DEIR, 2013). The nearest faults to the project site are the Little Salmon fault zone (North Spit fault) and the Freshwater fault zone (Freshwater fault) (Figure 5). The recurrence interval, the time interval between earthquake events, of the Little Salmon fault zone is 400 to 800 years (USGS, 2012a).

Project Site Eureka, CA

Legend: Little Salmon fault zone (North spit fault) Little Salmon fault zone (Bay Entrance fault) Little Salmon fault zone (east trace Little Salmon fault) Little Salmon fault zone (Little Salmon fault) Freshwater fault zone (Freshwater fault) Mad River fault zone (Fickle Hill fault) Figure 5: Map of closest faults and fault zones to the Jefferson Community Center and Park project site (Google Inc., 2013) (USGS, 2012a). The probability of occurrence in the next 50 years for a 5.0 magnitude earthquake is 93.38% within a 31 mile radius. The largest recorded historical earthquake occurred northwest offshore of Eureka in 1980 with a magnitude of 7.2 (USGS, 2012b). Despite the presence of earthquake faults, the Jefferson project site has been evaluated to have less than significant impacts for geology and soils (Manhard, 2012). A rating of less than significant impact means that the buildings on the JCCP site, in the event of an earthquake, will receive little to no structural damage, nor are personnel or visitors on site at high risk for injury. Eureka is located on marine and non-marine (continental) sedimentary rocks. Specifically, the project site exists on alluvium and lake terrace deposits with mostly continental sand deposits and marine deposits near the coast (Figure 6). The soils are generally fine-loamy, course-loamy, and sandy mixtures. The soils in the Eureka area have poorly to well drained rates and are formed in marine deposits derived from mixed sources (USDA, 2013). Soils that are well drained have faster infiltration rates and groundwater movement. There has been no evidence of soil erosion on or within the vicinity of the site and the current on-site soils are suitable for bearing the existing structures (Manhard, 2012).

Qs

KJf
Project Site Eureka, CA Legend:
Q Qs = Quaternary alluvium and marine deposits = Quaternary sand deposits (coastal)

KJf = Franciscan complex (coast ranges) P = Pliocene marine rocks

Figure 6: Geologic map of Eureka and nearby cities (Google Inc., 2013) (USGS, 2012b).

2.3 VEGETATION
Current vegetation within the project area as well as vegetation that will be used in the gardens will be important in deciding the final design alternative due to the specific irrigation needs of these plants. The current vegetation on the project site consists of grass and local shrubs, however during the project native trees (such as Red Alder), plants, shrubs, groundcover, and turf will be planted at the project site to duplicate the coastal forest ecosystem of the Eureka area. The optimum design will take into account the daily water demand of the specific types of turf grass and crops. The community gardens will use the concept of deep mulching planting method to conserve water, in which natural compost (such as grass clippings, straw, leaves, and newspapers) are used along with mulch (smaller sizes of wood chips) to create a rich soil the keeps in moisture for plants (WCIA, 2013).

2.4 HYDROLOGY
Hydrology is the study of the movement and distribution of water. For the JCCP rainwater catchment and irrigation project, the most important aspects of hydrology are the local precipitation, temperature, evaporation, and groundwater levels. These variables will be needed for the optimum design decision and determination of the possible volume of water that can be used for irrigation purposes.

2.4.1 CLIMATE
A rainwater irrigation system should only be utilized if other natural watering, such as rain is not already occurring. Rainwater catchment also refills storage tanks based on local precipitation; as such local climate can drastically effect how a rainwater catchment system operates. Therefore it is

important to examine Eurekas local climate in order to evaluate how a rainwater catchment system would operate.

2.4.1.1

Precipitation data close to the project site will be used to predict the volume of water that can be harvested by the rainwater catchment system and how the precipitation will impact the amount of irrigation needed for the project vegetation. The main climate observation station for the City of Eureka, is the NWS and NOAA site at Woodley Island, just off the coast of Eureka (Figure 7).

PRECIPITATION

Figure 7: Map showing the relative location of the Woodley Island NWS and NOAA site to Jefferson School (Google Inc., 2013). Eureka has a rainy, moderate climate with temperatures that can reach up to 79 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer, based on yearly averages, to lows of 30 degrees in the winter. The average annual temperature is approximately 58 degrees. The previous record high temperature in the area was in 1993 at 87 degrees Fahrenheit and the last record low was 20 degrees in 1888 (NWS, 2013). Daily precipitation data taken from the Eureka Woodley Island (ERK) site from February 17, 1983 to February 17, 2013 showed an average of 38.1 inches per year (Table 2), which includes all wet and dry water years (CDWR, 2013). Most of the dry season occurs in the summer months from around June to September. The record maximum precipitation was 67.21 inches in 1983 and the record low precipitation was 21.17 inches in 1929. The average precipitation as snow for the area was found to be around 0.2 inches (NWS, 2013). This data can be used in the design process due to the close proximity of the Eureka station at Woodly Island to the project site.

10

Table 2: Average monthly and annual precipitation data taken from the Eureka Woodley Island Station located in Eureka, CA (CDWR, 2013).
Month Precipitation (in) Jan 5.97 Feb 5.51 Mar 5.55 Apr 2.91 May 1.62 Jun 0.65 Jul 0.16 Aug 0.38 Sep 0.86 Oct 2.36 Nov 5.78 Dec 6.35 Annual 38.1

Precipitation intensity duration frequency (IDF) curves (Figure 8) are used to determine the precipitation amounts (in inches) for various recurrence intervals (1-yr, 2-yr, 5-yr, 10-yr, 25-yr, 50yr, 100-yr, 200-yr, 500-yr, and 1000-yr). A design storm can be determined using a regions individual developed IDF curve. The IDF curve determined by NOAAs National Weather Service using 14 point precipitation frequency estimates of Eureka, CA can be found in Figure 8 below and can be used in the design process for needed water storage of the project area. (NOAA, 2013).

Figure 8: Intensity-duration curve for Eureka, CA using 14 point precipitation frequency estimates (NOAA, 2013).

2.4.1.2

EVAPORATION AND TRANSPIRATION The nearest location for evaporation data was located in Ferndale for the period of 1963 to 1973, the evaporation pan having since been removed. Yearly averages show pan evaporation of 31.64 inches a year, with most of the evaporation taking place from March to September (WRCC, 2013).
Evapotranspiration is the water lost to the atmosphere from the ground surface, from the capillary fringe of the groundwater table, and the transpiration of groundwater through plant leaves (USGSc, 2013). Evapotranspiration (ETo) is an indicator of how much water crops and trees need for their healthy productivity. ETo measurements are used in system design for irrigation scheduling due to the fact that plant leaves and soils retain some water that is then available for evaporation with the remaining part infiltrating into the soil. The California EToZones Map developed by the DWR and UC Davis divides the state of California into 18 zones based on long-term monthly average ETo

11

values. These values are based on 5 years of data taken from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) and allow users to use evapotranspiration data for areas within these same zones. Figure 9 shows the division of California into the EToZones and that the project site is located in zone 1. ETo is calculated using the standardized American Society of Civil Engineers Penman-Monteith (ASCE PM) equation by remotely sensed data or interpolated point measurements for input parameters. The EToZones Map illustrated that site 109 located in San Francisco California is located in same zone (zone 1) as the project site well so the ETo values can be used for the project site. The data can be seen below in Figure 9 (CIMIS, 2013).

Figure 9: EToZones map for the state of California (CIMIS, 2013).

12

Figure 10: Site 193, Monterey's Daily Evapotranspiration Data (WRCC, 2013). Table 3 below demonstrates the average monthly and annual evapotranspiration data for zone 1 from the CIMIS ETo Zones Map. The maximum evapotranspiration occurs during the summer months and the minimum evapotranspiration occurs during the winter months (CIMIS, 2013). Table 3: Average monthly and annual evapotranspiration data for Zone 1 from the CIMIS EToZones map (CIMIS, 2013). Average Month Evapotranspiration (in.) January 0.93 February 1.40 March 2.48 April 3.30 May 4.03 June 4.50 July 4.65 August 4.03 September 3.30 October 2.48 November 1.20 December 0.62 Annual 32.92

13

2.4.2 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater levels need to be considered when designing sustainable irrigation systems to evaluate the impact that groundwater will have on the water demand and vegetation of the project area. A study performed by SHN Consulting Engineers and Geologists, Inc. demonstrated that around the project area there is a groundwater elevation around 29.07 feet (SHN Consulting Engineers and Geologists, INC. , 2003). Fluctuations in the groundwater level seasonally as well as annually will impact the amount of water that will need to be applied to the community gardens and park for irrigation purposes. A groundwater study of the project site will need to be performed before project installation to ensure accurate performance.

2.4.3 OTHER ON-SITE WATER SOURCES

The site shows a history of large amounts of storm runoff, as evidenced by a broken retaining wall with inset drains (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Retaining wall damaged by excess amounts of rainwater runoff (Benzonelli, 2013). The damage to the retaining wall also shows that the current site already receives a large amount of water during the wet months of the year. Markings on the pavement also indicate that there is storm runoff in other locations away from the retaining wall, but the water is not being utilized. The current rooftop gutter system is assumed by the client to lead to the project areas storm water sewer system (Figure 12). There is a water cistern onsite that is utilized for some onsite irrigation, although it is unknown whether or not this water is suitable for irrigation of edible produce (Benzonelli, 2013).

14

Figure 12: Example of a standard roof top gutter system downspout (Benzonelli, 2013).

2.5 SUSTAINABLE IRRIGATION IN URBAN SETTINGS

Sustainable irrigation techniques that can be used in urban settings include greywater systems, rainwater catchment systems, and drip irrigation systems. A greywater system would re-use water from bathroom sinks, washing machines, showers and tubs to be utilized for non-potable uses. Water that is collected from the roofs of buildings and stored in tanks is a rainwater catchment system. Both methods are used to reduce fresh water consumption. A drip irrigation system is a slow and accurate application of water from a point source that is applied in a predetermined pattern to plant root zones through a series of hoses. A drip irrigation system maintains an optimum moisture level in the root zones to provide the proper balance of water and air needed for efficient plant growth while conserving water and absorption before evaporation (Stryker, 2011). Improving landscaping techniques by increasing soil organic matter would enhance the permeability of the area thus enhancing the infiltration, productivity, and water retention. Soil organic matter improvement and reduction in runoff can be accomplished by the use of sheet mulching, basins, and swales. Sheet mulching involves layers of cardboard, compost, and mulch that contain large amounts of nutrients to boost soil and microorganism productivity thus increasing water retention by decreasing evaporation. Swales and basins involve using the topography of the landscape to dig trenches and molded raised beds along the contours to provide increased rainwater catchment and decreased runoff (Nolasco, 2013).

2.6 REGULATORY SETTING

The final design of this project will be subject to the various codes, regulations, and standards applicable to the project. These regulations are defined on a national, state, and local level. National Regulation: Uniform Plumbing Code: Where applicable, this project will conform to all codes as described by the Uniform Plumbing Code. This code will apply to all piping and tank networks used in collection, storage, and irrigation.

15

American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association (ARCSA): The final design will incorporate suggested features and be subject to recommended standards as put forth by the ARCSA (ARCSA, 2013).

State Regulation: AB 275/Rainwater Collection Act 2011: This bill was introduced to amend existing rainwater collection regulation. This bill states that a landowner shall have the right to install and maintain and operate a rain barrel system (see Appendix A) that will be used for outdoor, potable use and complies with all manufacturers specifications. This water use will not be constrained by standards for drinking water or recycled water in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, but shall fully comply with the non-potable water quality requirements designated by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (AB275, 2011). 2010 California Building Code, Title 24: The final design will conform to all codes relating to soils, plumbing, electrical systems, and constructed foundations. Assumed load-bearing values of soils as well as any possible designs for supporting foundations will be designed to meet all relevant regulation. All tank designs will conform to specified Structural Design Regulations (BSC, 2012a). 2010 California Green Building Standard Codes Section: Irrigation controllers will be used in the final design. This will include the use of weather (rain) and soil moisture sensors. If additional water is required for irrigation beyond what is supplied by rainwater catchment, a water budget will be created, which will meet water efficient standards (BSC, 2010b). 2010 California Historic Building Code, Part 8: The existing structures on the project site are considered to be historically significant and shall therefore be subject to historic building code. This project shall not damage, alter, or detract from the historic attributes of the existing structures during and after construction (BSC, 2010c). City of Eureka Ordinances: Eureka has adopted the 2010 California Building Code Standards (Title 24) as a set of regulatory guidelines for all projects within the city limits. These projects are subject to Seismic Design Categories E and F. All project related construction will adhere to local best management practices (City of Eureka, 2013).

2.7 BACKGROUND CONCLUSION

The final selected design for the project will take into consideration the constraints of the project, the weighted criteria by the client, the current and future project areas conditions such as the geology and soils, the vegetation, and the hydrological conditions of the area (temperature, evaporation, evapotranspiration, precipitation, groundwater levels, and other on-site water sources). The optimum design will also abide by all the applicable federal, state, and local regulations and ordinances for the project.

16

PROJECT SITE WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS

The water demand of the project area will be used to determine the storage volume needed to irrigate crops grown in the community gardens and the turf grass in the park. The following section goes into detail on how the water demand for the community gardens and park was determined.

3.1 CALCULATING WATER DEMAND

Crop water demand (E (T)) is the amount of water a crop will consume through evapotranspiration during growth under optimal conditions. Optimal conditions are when there is uniform shading of the ground, the area is free of disease, crops/grass are actively growing, and soil conditions are favorable. Crop water demand is dependent on the climate, the crop type, and the growth stage of the crop. Climate factors such as sunlight, temperature, humidity, and wind-speed influence the water need of crops. Using the typical planting schedules on the Humboldt County Coast (Table 4) a daily irrigation schedule (using all crops listed with different planting times) was determined (Appendix C). The crop coefficients from each day were averaged and a daily demand for the community gardens was developed using the following equations (Equations 1-4) (Gupta, 2008): Table 4: Typical planting schedules on the Humboldt County Coast (Appropedia, 2013).
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CROP early late early late early late early late early late early late early late early late early late early late early late early late Carrots X X X X X X X X X Lettuce X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Spinach X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Summer Squash X X X X X X Broccoli X X X X X X X X X X X Radishes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Pumpkins X X X Peas X X X X X X X X X X X X Beans X X X X X X X Cover Crops X X Onions X X Garlic X X X X Leeks X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Corn X X Potatoes X X X X X X Eggplant X X X Artichokes X X Berries X X

Equation 1 Where: Water demand (in.) Temperature coefficient Crop coefficient Average daily temperature (oF) Daily percentage of annual daytime hours at 40north latitude

The temperature coefficients were calculated using the following equation (Gupta, 2008): Equation 2 The reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) measures the influence of the climate on water demand of crops. Daily ETo data taken from CIMIS for Stations 47(Brentwood), 132 (Twitchell 17

Island), and 109 (Carneros) all located in San Francisco, CA were used from 1/1/2008-3/11/2013 and can be found in Appendix C. These stations can be used for the project site based on the fact that they are within the same ETo zone. The crop factor, Kc illustrates the difference between the reference crop and the crops actually grown and is dependent on the total growing season of each crop and the various growth stages. The crops typically grown in Humboldt County and their planting seasons are found in the attached electronic appendices. The initial growing stage of crops is the period from transplanting or sowing until 10 percent of the ground is covered. The crop development stage goes from the initial stage until full ground cover has been reached. The period after the end of the crop development stage that lasts until crop maturity is the mid-season stage. The late season stage then goes until the last day of harvesting. The initial, crop development, midseason stage, and the late season stages with their corresponding crop coefficients can be found in Appendix C. To calculate the water demand within the 3500 ft2 community garden area a variety of crops were used in 35 100 ft2 beds. Daily average Kc values from all beds were then used in Equation 1 (Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, 1986). Average temperature is calculated using the following equation (Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, 1986): Equation 2 Where: Maximum temperature recorded (C) Minimum temperature recorded (C) The daily percentage of annual daytime hours was determined by adding daily global horizontal radiation in in watts per meters squared (W/m2) averaged over 5 years from Humboldt State Universitys Solar Radiation Monitoring Station (SoRMS) and dividing daily global horizontal radiation data by the annual sum. The daily global horizontal radiation and resulting daily percentages of annual daytime hours can be found in Appendix C. The average temperature of the area was determined using the maximum and minimum temperatures averaged over the last 30 years from California Climate Data Archive from Eureka, CA (Appendix C). The potential volume of water that can be collected from the roof uses daily effective precipitation. Daily effective precipitation data (precipitation events over 0.1 in.) averaged over the last 30 years taken from the California Climate Data Archive was also used to determine the potential volume of water falling on the site roof. A collection efficiency of 85% is estimated to account for losses due to splashing and evaporation. The annual potential rainfall that could be collected from the 18,126 ft2 roof was found to be 581,887gallons (Equation 4). Equation 4 Where: Potential rainfall that can be collected (gallons) Catchment area (ft2) e = Catchment efficiency (85%) = Effective rainfall from the current storm event

Using a garden area of 3500 ft2 for the community gardens and 31,949 ft2 for the park, the water demand was determined to be 44,274 gallons for the community gardens and 332,985 gallons for the park area (not taking into consideration groundwater sources). These results illustrated that a

18

very large tank will be needed for the JCCP project. However, due to size constraints, a range of 5000 to 20,000 gallons would be most suitable to the project.

RAINWATER CATCHMENT AND IRRIGATION COMPONENTS

All rainwater catchment systems consist of a gutter/screen system for water collection and transportation, a system that diverts the first 10 minute flush of every precipitation event, a storage system (with overflow), and a distribution system. The following sections detail the components that can be applied to all variations of the alternatives. All alternatives will include a gutter system (with screens), a piping system, a first-flush diverter, a wintering tee and air gap, a type of storage, an irrigation controller, a rain and soil moisture sensor, and a type of irrigation. Alternatives vary by the location, size, and number of tanks/storage the system uses.

4.1 GUTTERS AND SCREENS/GUARDS

Gutters are an essential part of a rainwater catchment system. Gutters line the lower edges of a roof to collect storm runoff from a roof surface and convey it to a downspout to be discharged to the ground or collected in a tank. The JCCP is currently equipped with 4 aluminum gutters. This gutter system does not seem to be in need of immediate repair or replacement. A common feature for many gutters used in a rainwater catchment system is the addition of a screen or guard installed on top of the gutters (Figure 13). This screen allows for additional protection from leaves and other wind-blown debris entering the gutter system. The addition of screens decreases the need for filtration and additional settling in the rainwater catchment system. There are several types of gutter screens available including metal or plastic mesh. Costs of a few types of gutter screens can be seen in (Table 5).

Figure 13: Shown above is a gutter fitted with a metal screen (or guard) to keep leaf litter and debris out (Rick's Rain Gutters, 2013).

19

Table 5: Shown below are costs of locally available gutters and gutter screens/guards (Ace Hardware Corporation, 2013). Item Unit Cost Source 5" x 10' aluminum gutters $119.90 Ace Hardware 5 " x 48" aluminum gutter leaf guards (set of $49.99 Ace Hardware 5) 6" x 20' plastic Amerimax Gutter Guard (can $5.99 Ace Hardware be cut to desired size)

4.2 PIPE MATERIAL

Common to every system will be piping used to convey water. Each system (regardless of the alternative) will use piping to transfer water from the gutter system to the storage tank and from the tank to the garden and park. Each system will have some length of pipe both above and below ground. There are two common choices for piping material used in this type of system: polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and high density poly ethylene (HDPE).

4.2.1 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC)

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping is commonly used in sanitary water and sewer applications due to its low cost, availability, and ease of use in construction. PVC will not corrode or rust as metal pipes do. The drawbacks of PVC are that care must be taken to avoid longitudinal cracking and that it will degrade when exposed to UV light. To avoid longitudinal cracking, care must be taken during installation and bedding. Pipe bedding is the layer of leveled sand or gravel upon which the PVC pipe is laid. As PVC also degrades in the sunlight, it is strongly recommended that this material be used for underground applications. If PVC is used in applications where it may be exposed to sunlight, it can be painted with Latex paint to reduce these effects. Costs of PVC components can be seen in (Table 6). The estimated number of items of PVC needed for each alternative will be multiplied by the corresponding unit cost of each item to be used in cost comparisons. Table 6: Shown below are costs of various PVC piping components (Lowe's Home Improvement, 2013). ITEM UNIT COST SOURCE 3" X 5' PVC Pipe $14.88 4" X 5' $9.88 3" coupler $1.23 4" coupler $2.01 6" coupler $11.00 Lowe's Online 3" elbow $2.39 4" elbow $4.29 6" elbow $17.78 3" 45 degree elbow $2.76 4" cleanout adapter fitting (threads on one side) $7.15

20

4.2.2 HIGH DENSITY POLY ETHYLENE (HDPE)

High Density Poly Ethylene (HDPE) is a petroleum-based material that is used extensively for corrosion resistant piping applications. HDPE is much stronger than PVC piping but is similar in cost. Care must also be taken during installation and bedding of this pipe material although HDPE is far more resistant to cracking than PVC. HDPE pipes, unlike PVC, are highly UV resistant. Prices of some HDPE components can be seen in Table 7 and will be used in cost comparisons to PVC items based on estimated quantity of items. While the HDPE pipe is less expensive than PVC it is difficult to find a manufacture of hard HDPE pipe, as most HDPE comes as flexible tubing. Table 7: Shown below are costs of some HDPE pipes of different sizes (Dultmeier Sales, LLC, 2013) Item Unit Cost Source 2" x 20' HDPE Pipe $1.78 3" x 20' HDPE Pipe $2.06 Dultmeier Supply 4" x 20' HDPE Pipe $3.28

4.3 FIRST-FLUSH DIVERTERS

The surface of a roof can collect dust, leaves, animal feces, and other chemicals and debris. Firstflush diverters collect the first incoming flow during a storm event, potentially cleaning much of these contaminants before this water enters a collection tank. First-flush systems require cleaning after each rain event and can be diverted to gardens or planter boxes. Sizing a first-flush system varies on the roof catchment area, dry periods between rainfall events, and the amount of debris collected. The general rule is to divert 10 gallons of collected water to the first-flush system for every 1,000 square feet of roof area. This recommendation varies from 13 to 49 gallons for every 1,000 square feet, depending on local conditions (Texas Water Development Board, 2005). The most simple first-flush diverter is a PVC standpipe that is placed before water enters the tank. A certain volume fills the standing pipe and once it fills, the rest of the flow is diverted to the tank. This configuration requires cleaning after each rainfall. Another first-flush system involves a ball valve diverter. As water fills a standpipe, a floating ball rises with the water level and caps off the standpipe once a certain volume is filled (Figure 14). The subsequent flow is then diverted to the tank (GROWNYC, 2008). Angling the first flush diverter 45 degrees outward allows for easier cleaning and maintenance.

21

Figure 14: (Left) Simple standpipe first-flush diverter. (Right) Ball valve first-flush diverter (Texas Water Development Board, 2005).

4.4 WINTERING TEE AND AIR GAP

Wintering tees are devices that attach to an existing downspout (Figure 15). Rather than completely removing a downspout and replacing it with pipes, a wintering tee is used to keep the downspout intact while giving the option of diverting water into the tank or into the storm sewer system. This allow the operator to switch back to the main downspout in the event of a tank overfill. Air gaps are physical spaces made from piping material that prevents backflow due to pressure being created in the pipes (GROWNYC, 2008).

Figure 15: Wintering tee that would be attached to a downspout (GROWNYC, 2008).

22

4.5 WATER STORAGE TANKS

Storage tanks can be made from a variety of materials. Surface tanks for rainwater catchment and storage systems are usually made of brick, concrete blocks, ferrocement (a low-cost steel and motar composite material such as Gunite or Shotcrete), plastic, wood, galvanized iron, or a combination of these materials (for example cement or steel can be used within ferrocement). Climate, local resources, waterproofing, structural limits, and budget are all factors in the type of materials used in tank design. Above-ground tanks should be painted white to reduce evaporation and keep water cool by reflecting the suns rays. Other tank constraints include the following (Domestic Roofwater Harvesting Research Group , 2001): Being able to handle excess input by overflowing, Material that does not potentially pollute the water, Exclude light to prevent algal growth, Have easy access for cleaning, Have sufficient structural safety factor to withstand climate impacts, winds, and earthquakes, and Not present hazards to persons that will come into contact with the tank.

4.5.1 FIBERGLASS
Fiberglass tanks (50 gallons to 15,000 gallons) can be built in both vertical and low-horizontal cylinder systems. Fiberglass tanks were tested and approved under weathering elements but tanks less than 1,000 gallons made of fiberglass can be expensive when compared to the available capacity so polypropylene is more optimal at this size.

4.5.2 POLYPROPYLENE
Polypropylene tanks are sold at farm and ranch supply stores and must be installed above ground if it is a standard polypropylene tank. Reinforced tanks are needed to withstand soil expansion and contraction for below ground tanks. Polypropylene tanks are durable, lightweight, inexpensive, and available from 50 to 10,000 gallons of capacity. The disadvantages of polypropylene tanks are that they may be subject to leakage from bulkhead fittings and they do not retain paint well.

4.5.3 WOOD
A wood tank can be used for rainwater storage for aesthetic appeal. Wood tanks have capacities of 700-37,000 gallons and can be made of redwood, pine, cedar, or cypress lined with plastic and wrapped with steel tension cables. An advantage of a wood tank is that they can be taken apart and reassembled at different locations if needed.

4.5.4 METAL
Galvanized sheet metal tanks dipped in hot zinc for corrosion resistance (150-2,500 gallons) can also be used for aesthetic appeal, are lightweight, and are re-locatable. Galvanized sheet metal tanks are lined with a food-grade liner and coated on the inside with epoxy paint to extend the life of the metal.

4.5.5 CONCRETE
Concrete tanks are poured or prefabricated and can be used above or below ground. Disadvantages of concrete include cracking and leaking (especially in underground tanks). Leaks are repaired easily but tank may be emptied before maintenance can be done. Ferrocement is an inexpensive steel and mortar composite material applied by a pressurized gun. The advantage of using

23

ferrocement structures is that they are easily repaired and construction is inexpensive due to less material needed (Texas Water Development Board, 2005).

4.5.6 RAIN BARRELS

A 50- to 75-gallon drum used as a rain barrel can be used for rainwater storage and for irrigation installed on a platform at the highest point in the system. A screen trap at the water entry point of the barrel can be used to trap particles within the rainwater as well as to discourage mosquito breeding. A spigot with a bulkhead fitting can be installed at the bottom of the rain barrel for irrigation. Rain barrels are simple to install but do not have much storage capacity (GROWNYC, 2008).

4.5.7 BRICK
Less expensive material that can be used for storage tanks is burned bricks. Burned bricks are often made locally and less expensive than imported materials such as plastic or cement. Brick tanks are more suited to absorb compressive forces but when building a brick tank the absorption of the tensile stresses need to be taken into consideration (Domestic Roofwater Harvesting Research Group , 2001).

4.5.8 OTHER MATERIALS

Stabilized soil, a small amount of cement to hold together a solid based block, can reduce the amount of cement needed for constructing a tank. Ramming earth or mud between tank walls will compact the soil and it can provide stiffer walls to a storage tank. Plastic sheeting or waterproof coatings can be used for lining tanks to make them waterproof. Cost of storage tanks can also be minimized by minimizing the volume of materials needed for storage tank construction. (Domestic Roofwater Harvesting Research Group , 2001). Storage tanks are typically cylindrical because stresses are more evenly distributed by having bending stressing only near the bottom. Cylindrical tanks also have increased efficiency in material use to the storage capacity when compared to cuboid shaped tanks (Domestic Roofwater Harvesting Research Group , 2001). Table 8 illustrates the typical storage capacities and advantages and disadvantages of using different materials for rainwater storage developed by the Texas Water Development. Fiberglass, concrete, and polypropylene have the largest advantages for the system to be used in the project. Materials used would also depend on local resources and criteria. In-ground tanks are more expensive for installation due to the cost of excavation and the need for a more heavily reinforced tank. A tank should not be buried in clay due to the contraction and expansion. Polypropylene tanks can be made thicker and an interior bracing can be added to install tanks below ground (Texas Water Development Board, 2005).

24

Table 8: Typical capacities and advantages/disadvantages for different storage tank materials (Texas Water Development Board, 2005). Material Typical Capacities Advantages/Disadvantages Can last for decades without Fiberglass 500-20,000 deterioration, easily repaired, can be painted Usually 10,000 Concrete Easily repaired/can crack or leak gallons or greater Easily re-locatable and Metal 150-2,500 gallons lightweight/ rusting and leaching of zinc to water Lightweight, durable/ may result in water temperature problems or Polypropylene 300-10,000 gallons algae growth if exposed to sunlight Wood 700-50,000 gallons Aesthetically pleasing Polyethylene 300-5,000 gallons Good for below ground tanks Rain Barrel 55-100 gallons Low capacity for cost

4.6 IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS

Irrigation controllers (Figure 16) are electronic units that allow an irrigation system to be automated based on a start and end time set by the operator of the system. The controllers come in several varieties, the most common being a simple timer. More complex controllers are available that are programmable and have inputs for various sensors, such as soil moisture and rain sensors. Most irrigation controllers that have inputs for sensors cost approximately $120-$180, with more complex controllers costing up to $300 when fine control of an irrigation system is of utmost importance (Dukes, 2013).

Figure 16: Example of an irrigation system controller with input panel for sensors (Rain Bird Corp., 2013).

4.7 SOIL MOISTURE SENSORS (SMS)

Soil moisture sensors (SMS) (Figure 17) are electronic probes that measure the amount of water present in soil. The probes are usually composed of two prongs or wires that measure the resistance of the soil. The sensors, available in both wired and wireless formats, send a signal back 25

to a SMS controller that translates the resistivity into a certain amount of water content. A SMS controller tied into an irrigation controller can send a signal to the irrigation controller when water content in the soil is low, triggering the irrigation controller to activate (Cardenas-Lailhacar, Dukes, & Shedd, 2013).

Figure 17: An example of a wireless soil moisture sensor and controller unit (Cardenas-Lailhacar, Dukes, & Shedd, 2013). Typically a residential yard or garden only needs one sensor, and that sensor acts as an estimate for the soil content of the whole yard or garden. Larger systems or yards can use up to four sensors per irrigation controller. SMS are also not typically used in moist climates, or areas with persistent rainfall (Cardenas-Lailhacar, Dukes, & Shedd, 2013). The price ranges of a wireless SMS and a wired SMS with a relay board can be found in Table 9 (the upper range of the wireless SMS is for a four sensor system). The main disadvantage of a wireless SMS of sensor is the cost per sensor and the maintenance of the sensors, as each wireless sensor has a set of batteries that need to be regularly replaced. Wired sensors require a relay board to interface with irrigation controllers which can cost around $80-120, but the cost per sensor is lowered as a relay board can attach to multiple sensors. The main disadvantage of wired soil moisture sensors is the cable itself. Most units have a limit of 10 feet of cable, and the cable would have to be buried in order to avoid tripping hazards. Table 9: Soil moisture sensor costs (Cardenas-Lailhacar, Dukes, & Shedd, 2013). Item Cost Source $120-600 (four Wireless SMS (Cardenassensor system) Lailhacar, Dukes, Wired SMS with Relay & Shedd, 2013) $80-120 Board

26

4.8 RAIN SENSORS

A rain sensor (Figure 18) is a gauge, typically mounted to a fence, gutter or wall, which detects rain. Inside each sensor are water absorbent disks that expand as the absorb water. Rain sensors are typically tied into an irrigation controller with inputs for sensors. When a rain event begins the disk begins absorbing water. Once the disk has received a certain amount of water and has expanded the sensor cuts off the signal of the irrigation controller to the irrigation system, stopping any current irrigation and preventing any irrigation that would have started during the rain event.

Figure 18: An example of a rain sensor (Rain Bird Corp., 2013). Most rain sensors can be adjusted for ventilation such that the disk is allowed to dry out at a slower or faster rate. A slower rate of drying allows for a longer time before the irrigation system returns to regular operation, while a faster drying rate allows the irrigation system to return to regular operation at a faster rate. The rate of drying is dependent on how quickly the irrigation system needs to return to regular operation after a rain event. A typical rain sensor can cost anywhere from $20 to $40 a unit, but only one is needed per irrigation controller. Rain and freeze sensor combination units are also available and cost approximately $100. The sensor does have placement requirements and needs to be kept out of high winds and out from under awnings or trees. It also needs to be placed within 25 feet of the irrigation controller, as that is the typical wire length for a sensor. After installation the rain sensor does not require additional maintenance.

4.9 DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

Drip irrigation systems (Figure 19) are used to conserve water use from a rainwater catchment system. Drip irrigation systems are used to reduce water consumption by application of small amounts of water supplied directly to the roots of the plants thus reducing evaporation from leaf surfaces. Water flows from a rainwater storage tank into a series of thin flexible hose lines that are placed on the surface or beneath a layer of mulch. Holes in the hoses allow water to slowly trickle out to water the roots of plants (Kafin, Van Ooyen , & Leung, 2008).

27

Figure 19: The basic components of a drip irrigation system (Stryker, 2013).

4.9.1 VALVES
Water flows from a rainwater harvesting system to a series of valves at the beginning of a drip irrigation system. Valves are used in a drip irrigation system to turn on and off the water flow through a pipe. An isolation value can be installed anywhere on the system to be used for infrequent water shut-off when repairs are needed or during the non-irrigation season. Control values turn on and off the individual system areas that are irrigated separately (Stryker, The Basic Parts of A Drip Irrigation System , 2013).

4.9.2 BACKFLOW PREVENTER AND PRESSURE REGULATOR

A backflow preventer prevents particles and contaminants around the system from being pulled back into the drip system. A pressure regulator (typically non-adjustable for small systems and adjustable for larger drip systems) reduces the water pressure to a constant level and is usually installed after the control valve. Non-adjustable pressure regulators are typically plastic and have a pre-set outlet pressure with very specific flow ranges (they will not work if used at flows higher or lower than flow range) so if very high water pressures are present an adjustable-type pressure regulator should be used. Adjustable pressure regulators are most often made of bronze or brass with a large screw on it to adjust the outlet pressure at least 15 PSI lower than the inlet pressure (Stryker, 2013).

4.9.3 FILTER

A filter (150 to 200 mesh number and pressure rating of 150 PSI or higher) should be used in a drip irrigation system to filter out small particles that will easily clog the system. The filter can be installed before the valve or pressure regulator (Stryker, 2013).

4.9.4 EMITTERS AND PIPING

Emitters are preassembled as part of a hose or snap into the drip tube or pipe and control how fast the water drips onto the roots of the plants. Emitters typically allow 4 liters per hour (1 gallon per hour) to drip onto the soil. The mainline pipe is the pipe that goes from the water source to the control values and is typically made up of galvanized steel, PVC, copper or heavy wall polyethylene. The mainline should be buried to prevent damage. Polyethylene is used only when water pressures

28

are below 50 PSI unless a special type of Polyethylene called PEX is used for higher pressure. The mainline will be installed in a loop around the property for large drip systems with hose bibs installed at 30 m (100 feet) intervals to allow for use of the hoses. The lateral pipe is located between a control valve and the drip tube after the pressure regulator and typically made of PVC, PEX, or polyethylene. The lateral pipe is used when the irrigated area is too large for a single drip tube. Drip tubing is a thin-wall polyethylene tube that is laid on the ground surface between the plants. Drip tubing contains emitters and is used for water application to the plants (Stryker, 2011).

4.9.5 AIR VENT, FLUSH VALVE, AND END CAP

An air vent should be used to prevent air from being sucked into the emitters when the drip irrigation system is off. The end cap prevents all the water from flowing out the end of the drip tube. A flush valve can be used to flush out all the settled sediment that develops inside the tube (Stryker, 2013). Costs of basic drip irrigation components can be seen in Table 10. Table 10: Shown below are prices for common components in a drip irrigation system. These prices were found online at groworganic.com. Drip Irrigation Item Unit Price Source 1/2" Poly Tubing (1000' coil) $78.99 Peaceful Valley Farm Supply 1/4" Poly Tubing (500' roll) $26.99 Peaceful Valley Farm Supply 1/8" Poly Tubing (100' roll) $11.99 Peaceful Valley Farm Supply Backflow Preventer (3/4") $3.11 Peaceful Valley Farm Supply 1gph in line drip emitter $0.32 Peaceful Valley Farm Supply 1/2" T $2.29 Peaceful Valley Farm Supply 1/8" barbed coupler $0.14 Peaceful Valley Farm Supply 1/2" figure 8 closer $0.29 Peaceful Valley Farm Supply

ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS

The following sections detail the possible system alternatives based on tank location, size, and number utilized. Each system will have parts in common, and each alternative will be paired with a diagram of the system and detail the estimated cost of each alternative. Presented first will be all common components and their respective costs. Each system also functions in essentially the same manner, the only differences being the number, size, and placement of the storage tanks. Each system will collect rainwater that runs off the roof during storm events, which is then conveyed through gutters and piping to a first flush system. Debris and organic matter is screened out both as it enters the gutters and the first flush system. Rainwater is then routed to a collection tank, where it is stored until needed for irrigation. Rain and soil moisture sensors signal an irrigation controller and pump to deliver water during dry conditions. The water is distributed to garden beds and lawns through a drip irrigation system.

5.1 COMMON COMPONENTS AND COST ASSUMPTIONS

Each of the alternatives presented in this paper are designed around the basic principles of rain water catchment systems. As such, these alternatives all contain a number of similar or matching components. Assumptions regarding the components used and their costs are discussed in this section.

29

Every alternative is assumed to use an equal number of the following components: gutter screens, PVC piping, and first flush systems (Table 11). These components and their prices will be described in each alternative as Common Components. These common components make up the collection and conveyance portion of the system. These costs include enough gutter screening to cover all existing gutters, 17 first flush systems, and all piping used in the conveyance system. This pipe system will be 2 diameter PVC, which will be buried around the perimeter of the building. This pipe will slope downhill toward the storage tank(s) and gravity will convey the rainwater to the tank(s). Table 11: Shown below are names and pricing of components common to every system. The cost analysis of each alternative will include the costs presented in this table. Collection System (from gutters to tank) Piping Unit Cost Lengths (ft) Diam (in) Cost ($) Labor Cost ($) ($/ft) 1029 2 $ 0.70 $ 720 $ 1,829 Item Gutter Screen (6" x 20') 4" 90 degree 4" Tee First Flush System Sub-Total Piping Components Unit Cost Unit ($) $ 5.99 20 $ 9.60 38 $ 13.50 17 $ 30.00 17 Cost ($) $ $ $ $ $ 120 365 230 510 1,434 Labor Cost ($) $ $ $ $ $ $ 12 36 23 51 1,900 3,335

Collection Total Cost

In addition to catchment system components shared between alternatives, each alternative also includes the cost of the drip and perforated pipe irrigation systems. The JCCP hopes to irrigate roughly 3500 ft2 of garden space. This equates to roughly 35, 5 ft x 20 ft garden beds. A buried 2 diameter PVC pipe will act as a supply line from the tank/city water main to the two garden areas. Coming up into each garden bed will be a 1 diameter PVC pipe which will be capped with a manual valve, a check valve, a pressure regulating valve (PRV), and an in-line filter. From this filter, a poly irrigation line will act as a header tube (Figure 20). This header will supply four 1/8 poly irrigation line fitted with 19 emitters each to irrigate each bed. This makes a total of 76 emitters per bed able to deliver - 1 gallon of water, each, per hour. The total cost of this drip irrigation system, which is represented in each of the alternatives is $3,979 (Table 12).

30

Figure 20: Shown above is the drip line configuration for each 5ft x 20ft garden bed at the JCCP.

31

Table 12: Shown below are the components used in the JCCP drip irrigation system and their costs. Garden Irrigation System Piping Lengths (ft) Diam (in) Unit Cost ($/ft) Cost ($) Labor Cost ($) 133 2 0.70 93 118 365 1 0.50 183 324 Piping Components Item 2" coupler 1" coupler 2" Ball Valve Manual 2" check valve 2" -> 1" PVC T In-line Valve (1") PGA 100 In-line PGA150 1.5" PGA 200 (2") 1" Manual Valve SST Rainbird Irrigation Controller (6 station) Soil Moisture Sensor (SMS) Rain Sensor 1" PVC T 2" PVC T 2" PVC cap 1" -> 3/4" valve (hose bib) Backflow Preventer (3/4") 3/4" pressure regulator 3/4" filter 3/4" (threads) to 1/2" (compression) 1/2" drip T 1/2" Poly Tubing (1000' coil) 1/8" Poly Tubing (100' roll) 1gph in line drip emitter 1/2" T (compression for poly) 1/8" barbed coupler 1/2" figure 8 closer Unit Cost ($) 2 1 18 19 4 24 56 77 8 165 114 25 2 4 3 4 3 9 5 4 2 79 12 0 5 0 0 Sub-Total Units 14 40 2 2 6 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 35 1 2 35 35 35 35 35 35 1 28 2660 35 140 70 Cost ($) 28 24 36 38 21 48 0 0 16 165 114 25 53 4 6 123 109 315 175 123 80 79 336 851 158 20 20 $ 3,240 $ $ Labor Cost ($) 3 2 4 4 2 5 0 0 2 17 11 3 5 0 1 12 11 32 18 12 8 8 34 85 16 2 2 739 3,979

GARDEN IRRIGATION TOTAL COST

32

Along with the 3,500ft2 of garden space, about one acre of park/field will be irrigated using an underground perforated pipe system (Table 13). This type of system was chosen to minimize exposure to non-potable rainwater. The perforated pipe system works by using a 2 diameter, buried PVC line as a water main in the field. This pipe will be used to supply water to a series of 1 diameter, perforated PVC pipe. Each 1 pipe will be equipped with an in-line valve controlled by an irrigation controller. The use of rainwater in the park irrigation requires the use underground perforated pipe. If the field were only irrigated with city water, sprinkler systems could be used, which would reduce system costs and potential maintenance. Table 13: Shown below are the components used in the JCCP field irrigation system and their costs. Park Irrigation Components Lengths (ft) 435 4000 Item 2" Ball Valve Manual 2" check valve Soil Moisture Sensor (SMS Rain Sensor SST Rainbird Irrigation Controller (6 station) SST Rainbird Irrigation Controller (12 station) PGA 200 (2") Sprinkler Heads (1/2") 2" -> 1" PVC T 2" Cap 2" T Diam (in) 2 1 Unit Cost ($) 18 19 114 25 165 180 77 2 4 3 4 Sub-Total Piping Unit Cost ($/ft) 0.7 0.5 Unit 1 1 1 1 2 3 14 84 84 14 14 Cost ($) 305 2000 Cost ($) 18 19 114 25 330 540 1085 171 294 42 56 $ 4,998 Labor Cost ($) 387 3555 Labor Cost ($) 2 2 11 3 33 54 108 17 29 4 6 4,211 $ 9,209

Piping Components

PARK IRRIGATION TOTAL COST

Alternative lifecycle costs were determined by estimating capital, operational, and maintenance costs as well as performing engineering economic analysis. This analysis estimates the lifespan of each component (Table 14) in the alternative and accounts for the present worth of the cost of repairing this component in the future. Various components of each alternative were assumed to have different lifespans. For each repair in the future, a single payment present worth analysis was used to estimate present expenses. For repeated repairs, such as monthly maintenance costs, a uniform series present worth analysis was performed.

33

Table 14: Shown below are the estimated lifespans and costs of the various components of each alternative. Component Repair Years Cost PVC Piping annually 5% of PVC capital costs Drip Irrigation every 5 years 10% of Drip capital costs Pump every 10 years $900 each Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are assumed to include annual labor costs as well as the costs of replacing batteries in sensor equipment. Labor costs include two hours of labor, per month, at a wage of $8 per hour (minimum wage in California) as well as $10 every three months to replace batteries. Each alternative will also consider costs including volunteer labor, which will reduce O&M costs to $40/year for batteries. Construction costs are assumed to be 15% of the total cost of components, including the costs of tanks. Construction costs will be zero in the scenario of volunteer labor.

5.2 ALTERNATIVE 1: TANK SYSTEM UNDER THE STAGE

This alternative involves either the use of two tanks in series or a pillow tank for rainwater storage to offset the JCCP garden and park water demand. These tank systems will be located underneath the proposed stage, which is to be built during the course of the Jefferson site renovation. This location was chosen as it allows the tanks to be hidden, and with a lockable side or trap door, the system can be easily accessed for maintenance. The location is also near both the gardens and fields, which will minimize the amount of distribution piping needed.

5.2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1A: TWO TANKS IN SERIES

This alternative involves the use two tanks in order to provide irrigation to the planned gardens and fields. Each tanks will be made of polyethylene and be approximately 5,000 gallons in size; totaling 10,000 gallons of storage. The components in this alternative include the components common to every system (Section 5.1) and two 5,000 gallon polyethylene tanks in series. A diagram showing the main components of this system can be seen below (Figure 21).

Figure 21: Diagram of the components making up Alternative 1a-Two Tanks in Series.

34

The costs for this system are based on average, online prices. Many of these items could be purchased locally at stores such as Ace Hardware. Two costs are provided for this system (Table 15). One cost assumes that labor is volunteered and the other includes the costs of labor. Costs are previously explained in Section 5.1. Having two 5,000 gallon storage tanks will result in double the quantity of pumps, soil moisture sensors, rain sensors, irrigation controllers, PVC pipes, first flush system, and minor costs from having two separate systems. Table 15: Shown below is the cost analysis of Alternative 1a-Two Tanks in Series Under Stage. ALTERNATIVE #1a - 2 TANKS UNDER STAGE (5,000 gallon) ITEM Collection System First Flush System Tank System Garden Irrigation Park Irrigation Total Labor Capital Cost Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M Capital Cost w/ Volunteer Labor Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M including volunteer labor Cost $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,155 510 5,900 3,240 4,998 7,581 24,384 24,616 17,561 17,601

5.2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1B: PILLOW TANK

This alternative involves the use of one 20,000 gallon pillow tank that will be located beneath the stage to provide irrigation to the planned community gardens and park. The pillow tank will be made of urethane, rubber, or vinyl fabrics and will have a storage capacity of 20,000 gallons. The space footprint on average that the pillow tank will take up will be 19 (Width) x 31-6 (Length) x 2-6 (Height), which will contribute to a lower space footprint needed with a higher storage capacity than using two polyethylene storage tanks (see Alternative 1a.). The components in this alternative include the components common to every system (Section 5.1). A table showing the main components of this system can be seen below. The costs for this system are based on the average, online prices. Many of these items could be purchased locally at stores such as Ace Hardware. Two costs are provided for this system (Table 16). One cost assumes that labor is volunteered and the other includes the costs of labor. Costs are previously explained in Section 5.1.

35

Table 16: Shown below is the resulting cost analysis of Alternative 1b-Pillow Tank Under Stage. ALTERNATIVE #1b - PILLOW TANK (20,000 gallon) ITEM Cost Collection System $ 2,155 First Flush System Tank System Garden Irrigation Park Irrigation Total Labor Capital Cost Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M Capital Cost w/ Volunteer Labor Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M including volunteer labor $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 510 4,899 3,240 4,998 7,481 23,283 23,515 16,550 16,590

5.3 ALTERNATIVE 2: TANK SYSTEM UNDER THE GARDENS

This alternative consists of either one polyethylene tank, two polyethylene tanks in parallel, or two polyethylene tanks in series located underground underneath either center of the two sections of community gardens. The storage tank(s) range from 5,000 to 10,000 gallons in size and are used to store water for irrigation of the community gardens and park grasses, shrubs, and trees. This location was chosen due to the high accessibility to the community gardens and to excavation. The location also allows for the storage tanks to be located where they will not use existing project area footprint. The water storage tanks will be unseen, contribute to a lower footprint for the project, and increase aesthetic appeal of the site. Underground storage tanks must take into consideration the surrounding landscape, underground utilities, cost, soil structure, existing downspouts, and aesthetic preference of the owner of the site. Manhole covers over below ground storage tanks ensure safety requirements are fulfilled but accessibility for needed maintenance and cleaning. The surface of the tank should be sealed against possible groundwater or surface water but the potential buoyancy (the tank could be forced out of the ground) when the tank is empty will need to be taken into consideration. Storage tanks should be made of materials that can withstand tensile and compressive stresses as well as waterproof (Stringer, Vogel , Lay, & Nash , 2005).

5.3.1 ALTERNATIVE 2A: ONE 10,000 TANK

The alternative includes one 10,000 gallon storage tank in combination with the components in Section 5.1. This alternative differs from the others presented in this report in that the tanks are underground. The profile of this system can be seen in (Figure 22).

36

Figure 22: Diagram of the rainwater catchment system, featuring the main components of Alternative 2a-One 10,000 Gallon Tank Under Garden. The costs for this system are based on the average, online prices. Many of these items could be purchased locally at stores such as Ace Hardware. Two costs are provided for this system (Table 17). One assumes that labor is volunteered and the other includes the costs of labor. Costs are previously explained in Section 5.1.

37

Table 17: Shown below is a table including a cost analysis of Alternative 2a. ALTERNATIVE #2a - ONE TANK UNDER GARDEN (10,000 gallon) ITEM Cost Collection System $ 2,155 First Flush System $ 510 Tank System $ 7,900 Garden Irrigation $ 3,240 Park Irrigation $ 4,998 Total Labor $ 11,783 Capital Cost $ 30,586 Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M $ 30,818 Capital Cost w/ Volunteer $ 19,981 Labor Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M $ 20,021 including volunteer labor

5.3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2B: TWO 5,000 GALLON TANKS

This alternative consists of two 5,000 gallon polyethylene tanks stored underground below the two sections of community gardens. The hidden storage tanks will contribute to a lower footprint than other alternatives as well as easier accessibility to the community gardens and park. The components in this alternative include the components common to every system (Section 5.1), two 5,000 gallon underground tanks, and tank-specific components (Section 5.1) for two tanks. This alternative differs from the others presented in this report in that the tanks are placed underground. This alternative can be connected either in series or in parallel. The profile of this system can be seen in (Figure 23).

Figure 23: Main components of Alternative 2b-Two 5,000 Gallon Tanks Below Gardens. 38

The costs for this system are based on the average, online prices. Many of these items could be purchased locally at stores such as Ace Hardware. Two costs are provided for this system (Table 18). One assumes that labor is volunteered and the other includes the costs of labor. Costs are previously explained in Section 5.1. These results illustrate that having two 5,000 gallon storage tanks is more cost efficient than having one 10,000 gallon storage tank even though the quantity of pumps, soil moisture sensors, rain sensors, irrigation controllers, PVC pipes, first flush system, and minor costs was doubled from having two separate systems. If this system is installed in parallel two pumps would be required which would add an additional $900 to the costs of the system (with replacement every 10 years adding to the total lifespan cost of the system as well). Table 18: Shown below is the cost analysis of Alternative 2b. ALTERNATIVE #2b - 2 TANKS UNDER GARDEN (10,000 gallon) ITEM Cost Collection System $ 2,155 First Flush System Tank System Garden Irrigation Park Irrigation Total Labor Capital Cost Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M Capital Cost w/ Volunteer Labor Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M including volunteer labor $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 510 5,990 3,240 4,998 7,500 24,393 24,625 17,643 17,683

5.4 ALTERNATIVE 3: TANK SYSTEM AGAINST COMMUNITY BUILDING

This alternative uses multiple rectangular tanks connected in series, multiple slim tanks, or pipe a system under the ADA ramps placed above grade, next to the buildings. The tanks used are either specifically designed with a rectangular base to easily fit next to a structure, slim tanks that conform to the building, or a pipe HDPE system that will be hidden within the ADA ramps. There is no single tank large enough to meet the water demand of this project at more than 340,000 gallons, therefore, only a multiple tank approach is analyzed.

5.4.1 ALTERNATIVE 3A: THREE 1,000 GALLON RECTANGULAR TANKS

The components in this alternative include the components common to every system (Section 5.1), three 1,000 gallon rectangular, polyethylene tanks in series, and tank-specific components (Section 5.1) for a single tank. This alternative differs from the others presented in this report in that the tanks are placed next to the building. The profile of this system can be seen in (Figure 24).

39

Figure 24: Profile view of Alternative 3a-Three 1,000 Gallon Rectangular Tanks Next to Building. The costs for this system are based on the average, online prices. Many of these items could be purchased locally at stores such as Ace Hardware. Two costs are provided for this system (Table 19). One assumes that labor is volunteered and the other includes the costs of labor. Costs are previously explained in Section 5.1. Table 19: Cost analysis of Alternative 3a. ALTERNATIVE #3a - RECTANGULAR TANK AGAINST BUILDING (3,000 gallon) ITEM Cost Collection System $ 2,155 First Flush System $ 510 Tank System $ 9,900 Garden Irrigation $ 3,240 Park Irrigation $ 4,998 Total Labor $ 7,981 Capital Cost $ 28,784 Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M $ 29,016 Capital Cost w/ Volunteer Labor Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M including volunteer labor $ $ 21,601 21,641

5.4.2 ALTERNATIVE 3B: SIX 530 GALLON SLIM TANKS

This alternative uses multiple tanks placed next to each other in series. Tanks in series can be connected by daisy chains that fit toward the bottom of each tank. These chains come in various sizes. Interconnecting a pipe towards the top of each tank as well allows for faster filling during high intensity storms and better performance of the outflow (Bushman, 2010). The major difference between Alternative 3b (Figure 25) and the others is the number of tanks. Tanks in series generally use smaller volume tanks. The chosen size for Alternative 3b was 530 gallons, 40

requiring about 5 to 6 tanks. Slim tanks can be used to be placed next to the building (Bushman, 2010). Because there is only one outflow, only two irrigation controllers are required (one for the fields and one for the gardens).

Figure 25: Example diagram of Alternative 3b-Six 530 Gallon Slim Tanks Next to the Building. The costs for this system are based on the average, online prices. Many of these items could be purchased locally at stores such as Ace Hardware. Two costs are provided for this system (Table 20). One assumes that labor is volunteered and the other includes the costs of labor. Costs are previously explained in Section 5.1. This system can be placed against a wall but will take up a bit more physical space. This can be mitigated by placing the system underneath the stage. Table 20: Cost analysis of Alternative 3b-Six 530 Gallon Slim Tanks Next to Buliding. ALTERNATIVE #3b- MULTIPLE TANKS AGAINST BUILDING (3,840 gallon) ITEM Cost Collection System $ 2,155 First Flush System Tank System Garden Irrigation Park Irrigation Total Labor Capital Cost Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M Capital Cost w/ Volunteer Labor Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M including volunteer labor $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 510 6,990 3,240 4,998 8,280 26,173 26,405 18,721 18,761

41

5.4.3 ALTERNATIVE 3C: 55 GALLON RAIN BARREL

This alternative is designed to minimize the cost of the system while meeting the basic grant requirements for rainwater gardening and sensor use. The tank used in this alternative is a simple food-grade 55-gallon tank, modified for use as a rain barrel. In addition a soaker hose is used to distribute water as opposed to drip irrigation. This particular alternative is much simpler than pervious alternatives. It utilizes a modified 55-gallon tank attached to a downspout at the site, followed by an irrigation controller attached to one soil moisture sensor and one rain sensor. The water is passed through a regular garden hose in order to reach the distance to the gardens and out to a soaker hose (Figure 26).

Figure 26: Diagram of Alternative 3c-55 Gallon Rain Barrel Next to Building. All costs for this system are based on the average online prices. All components with the exception of the first flush system can be purchased locally. The 55-gallon tank itself can be purchased second hand, as long as it is a food grade drum. Two costs are provided for the system (Table 21). One assumes that labor is volunteered and the other includes the costs of labor. Costs are previously explained in Section 5.1.

42

Table 21: Cost analysis result of alternative 3c-55 Gallon Rain Barrel Next to Building. ALTERNATIVE #3c - 55 Gallon Tank ITEM Cost Collection System $ 20 First Flush System $ 510 Tank System $ 110 Garden Irrigation $ 3,240 Park Irrigation $ 4,998 Total Labor $ 6,912 Capital Cost $ 15,790 Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M $ 16,022 Capital Cost w/ Volunteer Labor $ 9,569 Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M including volunteer labor $ 9,609

5.4.4 ALTERNATIVE 3D: PIPE SYSTEM UNDER ADA RAMPS

This is alternative is designed to minimize the physical footprint of a larger tank system by using a HPDE pipe network for storage instead. The system will be located under the proposed locations of the ADA ramps next to the community building, beneath the community gardens, or attached to the sides of buildings on the project site. The advantage of this alternative is that the system can be installed anywhere on the project site due to the flexibility of the system but a major disadvantage of this alternative is that the system has a lower storage capacity as well as a high cost. The cost of the system would substantially increase with larger diameter pipes used for storage as well as bends within the system due to the specialized labor that would be needed to put together the system. This alternative would use common system components (Section 5.1) as well as tank specific components (Section 5.1). All costs for this system are based on the average online prices. All components with the exception of the first flush system can be purchased locally. The HDPE piping system was estimated to be 425 ft. long with 16 inches in diameter, which resulted in a storage capacity of 4500 gallons. Installation costs were estimated to be $1.31/ft. of piping. Two costs are provided for the system (Table 22). One assumes that labor is volunteered and the other includes the costs of labor. Costs are previously explained in Section 5.1.

43

Table 22: Shown below are the cost analysis results of Alternative 3d-Pipe Lattice Under ADA Ramps. ALTERNATIVE #3d - 16" Pipe System (4,600 gal) ITEM Collection System First Flush System Tank System Garden Irrigation Park Irrigation Total Labor Capital Cost Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M Capital Cost w/ Volunteer Labor Capital Cost w/ 1 year O&M including volunteer labor Cost $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,155 510 6,090 3,240 4,998 7,510 24,503 24,735 17,744 17,784

SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES

This section compares all designed alternatives based on criteria and uses the Delphi matrix method which can be seen in Appendix D. The final alternative will be chosen based on particular criteria. Each individual criterion was given a particular weight by the client (Table 23). The Delphi method uses the total weighted score for each alternative to determine the most appropriate design. Table 23: Criteria and client weights used for the selection of a final design. Criterion Client Weight Cost Effectiveness 5 Educational Value 5 Aesthetics 4 Safety 4 Ease of Permitting 3

6.1 COST EFFECTIVENESS

Table 24 summarizes the capital cost with labor and the capital cost with volunteer labor for Alternatives 1 to 3 with their corresponding sub-alternatives. The location and size of the tank system are the limiting factors for the projects design alternatives. The rest of the rainwater and irrigation components are designed based on these factors.

44

Table 24: Summary of capital costs and lifetime costs for each alternative design. Alternative Labor Capital Cost ($) $24,384 $17,561 $23,283 $16,550 $30,586 $19,981 $24,393 $17,643 $28,784 $21,601 $26,173 $18,721 $15,790 $9,569 $24,503 $17,744 Lifetime Cost ($) $68,010 $53,398 $66,091 $51,569 $74,212 $55,818 $69,363 $54,824 $72,946 $57,974 $70,335 $55,094 $59,035 $45,025 $68,564 $54,016 Cost Rank (1 is best) 11 3 10 2 16 7 13 5 15 8 14 6 9 1 12 4

UNDER STAGE Alternative 1b Alternative 1b Alternative 1a Alternative 1a Alternative 2a Alternative 2a Alternative 2b Alternative 2b Alternative 3a Alternative 3a Alternative 3b Alternative 3b Alternative 3c Alternative 3c Alternative 3d Alternative 3d Included Volunteer Included Volunteer Included Volunteer Included Volunteer Included Volunteer Included Volunteer Included Volunteer Included Volunteer

UNDER COMMUNITY GARDENS

NEXT TO BUILDING

Based on the project objectives, constraints, and criteria, all alternatives will perform well. The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative can be found in Table 25. Alternative 3c had the lowest capital cost, the lowest space footprint, but also the lowest level of performance. Alternatives will be compared based on cost per gallon to illustrate the level of performance possible for the community gardens.

45

Table 25: Advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and their corresponding sub alternatives. Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Low capital cost Large space footprint (may not fit Alternative 1a Large storage capacity and beneath the stage) performance Large storage capacity and Alternative 1b Higher capital cost than Alternative 1a performance Easy accessibility to the community gardens Excavation needed (contributes to Alternative 2a cost) Large storage capacity and performance Lower capital cost than one 10,000 gallon tank Large storage capacity and Excavation needed (contributes to Alternative 2b performance cost) Easy accessibility to the community gardens Higher capital cost due to specialized tanks Easy accessibility for Alternative 3a maintenance Lower level of performance due to lower storage capacity Lower capital cost than Alternative 3a Lower storage capacity and Alternative 3b performance Easy accessibility for maintenance Lowest capital costs Lowest storage capacity and Alternative 3c performance Easy accessibility Low storage capacity and performance Flexibility in where the Alternative 3d Specialized labor needed (contributes system can be installed to costs)

6.2 SAFETY
All alternatives listed previously share common safety issues and benefits that may affect how suitable each system is to the JCCP. All alternatives share the same safety issues in the form of the drainage from the first flush system. The safety in regards to the first flush system is related to how this component drains. The first flush system drains by using a drip valve at the bottom of the storage pipe, making the water easily accessible to small children and animals. The water from this component is the most heavily contaminated of the rain water at thus presents a possible safety hazard. A method of covering the bottom of the first flush systems could be used; however the systems must still remain accessible in order to have inspections and cleanings performed. Alternatives 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b would result in a higher level of safety due to the fact that the storage systems are both located beneath the stage or under the community gardens and would not be in the way of community interaction.

46

Alternatives 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d are above ground tank systems, with overflow valves on each tank. Because of their location young children or animals could drink the overflow water, much like the first flush system. This can be mitigated by extending a length of pipe from the overflow down near the ground so the water is not easily accessible. In addition alternatives 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d present a risk of tipping during earthquake events, and possibly rupturing. This is less of an issue for alternatives 3a, 3b, and 3d due to the fact that they have wider bases (which create more stability) or are contained within the ADA ramp, but the possibility still exists. Alternative 3c also presents tripping hazards in the form of the irrigation hose extending from the tank.

6.3 AESTHETICS
All the listed alternatives will take into consideration the aesthetic appeal in the optimal design decision process to be used in the JCCP project. Gutters, first-flush systems, and piping (to each storage system) will be visibly accessible for all the systems and may contribute to lower aesthetic value depending on quantities needed for each alternative. Systems that are hidden will increase aesthetic appeal due to the fact that they would not be using space footprint on the project area. Alternatives 1a, and 1b have storage systems that are below the stage and therefore would achieve better aesthetic appeal than Alternatives 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d that would have visible systems and take up footprint of the area. Alternatives 2a and 2b also have optimal aesthetic appeal due to the fact that the storage systems will be located below the community gardens.

6.4 EDUCATIONAL VALUE

Educational value is a criteria to be used in the decision making process of the optimal design alternative to be used in the JCCP project. All alternatives will include signage explaining various parts of the rainwater catchment system, which will meet community education goals of the sustainable techniques used with rainwater catchment and irrigation systems. The more components that can be visibly seen to those who will be interacting with the system on the project area there will be greater potential educational value. While having the rainwater storage systems in Alternatives 1a, and 1b located beneath the stage and Alternatives 2a and 2b located beneath the community gardens may have a greater aesthetic appeal they do not have the higher potential for educational value that Alternatives 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d have. Alternatives 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d have visible systems for the community involvement to be educated on the entire rainwater catchment and irrigation system to potentially implement their own systems elsewhere. The simplicity of implementation would best portrayed by being able to see the entire rainwater catchment and irrigation system.

6.5 EASE OF PERMITTING

The final system design will take into account the difficulty in obtaining all necessary permits. A system that requires more permits or a more difficult permitting application is scored lower. The design group is currently in communication with the City of Eureka Building Department to determine the number and types of permits to which each alternative is subject. At this stage of research, it seems that the only permits necessary will be a plumbing permit for underground piping (necessary in every alternative) and a foundation must be built and inspected for any single tank over 5,000 gallons in volume. These permits are common and relatively easy to obtain.

6.6 FINAL SELECTED ALTERNATIVE

Based on the Delphi Matrix analysis, Alternative 1b scored the highest with a total score of 210 (Appendix D). Alternatives 3c and 3a scored the lowest with a total score of 146. Because the cost

47

effectiveness criterion is weighted higher than the other criteria, the Delphi Matrix heavily favors alternatives with lower lifetime costs. After presenting initial alternative results to Heidi Benzonelli, the projects client, it was decided that the final alternative will integrate various design alternatives. The final alternative will incorporate Alternative 3c, Alternative 3b, and Alternative 1b. A 55-gallonrain barrel and a slim tank next to the building are important for educational and demonstrative purposes while the larger tank system under the stage will provide water to the community gardens and park field.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Given input from the projects client, Heidi Benzonelli, the final preferred alternative incorporates parts of Alternative 3c, 3b, and 1b by using a rain barrel, a slim tank, and a pillow tank, respectively. The purpose of having three different tank sizes is to demonstrate the sustainability options available to everyone in the community. For instance, the rain barrel encourages home residences in the community of how simple a rainwater catchment system can be installed. The slim tank, with its professional design, attracts sustainability to businesses. And finally, the larger pillow tank under the stage demonstrates water saving techniques to the industrial community. The preferred design increases the educational value of the system but would naturally have a higher cost compared to the other alternatives. With this in mind, the new design was analyzed in the original Delphi Matrix to see how a combined alternative compared to the other alternatives. Due to the increase educational value, the combined design is 2 points higher than the next highest scored alternative, Alternative 1b, despite an increased capital cost of approximately $1,500.

7.1 DESIGN OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The final design alternative incorporates all of the parts needed for Alternative 1b which can be found in Section 4 of the document. In addition a single 55-gallonrain barrel and a single 530 gallon slim tank will be installed against the sides of the building. These two smaller tanks will have their own first flush and air gap/wintering tee, but will exist without the use of sensors or complex irrigation systems. Since they will function for demonstration purposes and not large scale use for the site, they will be fitted with a typical garden hose and can be used by community members wishing to water by hand. The two smaller tanks will also have their overflow pipes diverted to the main water diversion line underground, which diverts water from the downspouts to the pillow tanks, so that overflow water is not wasted. Each of the three tanks can have signage created for them that can describe the basics of each system with the 55-gallontank and the slim tank including parts and creation instructions to promote community usage of small scale rainwater catchment.

7.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PARTS

While the description of each individual part is available in section 4, the following parts are required for the preferred alternative (Table 26):

48

Table 26: Summary table of parts required to construct the preferred alternative Gutter screen guards, for debris protection Wintering Tee/Air gap for each of the 17 downspouts 2x 4inch by 5 foot lengths of PVC to create first flush tanks Approximately 1,000 feet of PVC pipe in order to reroute water from the downspouts 38x 90 degree PVC elbows 17x three way tees PVC pipe cutter 2x water pumps 2x irrigation Controllers 1x Soil Moisture sensor to meet grant criteria 2x rain sensors 2660x drip irrigation water emitters 28x 100 foot rolls of 1/8 inch drip line 1000 feet of inch header line 35x backflow preventers 35x inch tees 140x 1/8 inch barbed couplers 70x inch figure 8 closers 20,000 gallon pillow tank 55-gallonfood grade storage tank 1x Slim tank 2x basic garden hoses 1x spigot 1x tube of silicone sealant

7.1.2 DESCRIPTION OF INSTALLATION

The final alternative system has three components, as already stated. The location of the 55 gallon rain barrel will be approximately southwest of the back entrance of the current building. The 530 gallon slim tank will be just south of the back entrance up against the south wall, and the pillow tank will be located beneath the stage (Figure 27).

49

Figure 27: Diagram of tank placement for the final alternative After the tanks are installed the garden irrigation can be installed as described in section 4.9 earlier in the document. The pumps from the tank will pump water into 2-inch tubing installed beneath the ground. This water will enter a 1-inch header pipe that is above ground at each garden bed. This header pipe will be attached to a series of valves and filters that connect to -inch irrigation line. This -inch tubing will split into 1/8-inch tubing lines to feed the plants. A layout of underground 2-inch pipe can be seen in Figure 28 below:

50

Figure 28: Diagram of the layout of the underground 2 inch water distribution pipe for the garden irrigation system The field will be irrigated by a pump of the same size as the one for the garden. Similarly this pump will feed out to 2-inch pipe that will be below ground and follow around the edge of the field (Figure 29). The main 2-inch pipe will feed eighteen 1-inch perforated pipes that will irrigate the field when the irrigation controller is set for watering.

51

Figure 29: Diagram of the layout of the underground 2 inch water distribution pipe for the garden irrigation system

7.2 ANALYSIS OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

A hydraulic and economic analysis was conducted in order to see how the selected system would function once installed. The hydraulic analysis shows the response of the systems hydraulics to daily use, including addition to pipe pressure over time, tank head over time, pump sizing, and pipe sizing. The economic analysis examines the capital cost of the system and the lifetime cost for the systems 30 year lifespan.

7.2.1 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

A hydraulic analysis was perfromed on the system using the program EPANet 2.0, which is a water distribtuion system modeler, to determine pump sizing, pressures throughout the drip irrigation system,and accurate pipe diameter sizing. Piping system design is an iterative process in which an initial pipe diameter is chosen to meet a target pressure at the furthest distance from the pump (the furthest emitter in the furthest bed is assumed to be the greatest distance from the pump). This trial pipe diameter was evaluated to determine if it was appropriate for the requirements of the design. This is evaluated by the determination of the total dynamic head (TDH) in the system. The TDH is calculated using the following equation (White, 2011): Equation 7 Where :

Total dynamic head (ft.) Pressures at entrance and exit of network (assumed atmospheric so cancel) (Pa)

52

Velocities at entrance and exit of network (assumed to be equal so cancel) (ft/s) Elevation at entrance and exit of network (assumed at tank and furthest emitter) (ft.) Major friction losses in system (ft.) Minor friction losses in system (assumed negligble) (ft.) The irrigation systems to the gardens and to the park were modeled in EPANet assumming that the irrigation system would be run for 1 hour daily with a 2 diameter PVC pipe from the pump to the 2 mainline. The garden beds were modeled using 35 nodes (7 feet apart) on the mainline while the park was modeled using 14 nodes on the mainline that were 20 feet apart (Figure 30).

Figure 30: Diagram of garden hydraulic analysis system using EPANet 2.0 (Virtual Expo Group , 2013). By running the program the pressures at each corresponding node was determined. The pressure at the furthest node (the furthest garden bed and the furthest perforated pipe) from the pipe was optimal around 30 to 40 psi to obtain the optimal pressures through all the valves, filters, and drip lines/perforated pipes for all the emitters in the system (calculated by hand) The total dynamic head for the system was calculated assumming a maximum flow rate and friction for the pump. The maximum flow rate was calculated assuming each emitter has a flow rate of 0.004 gpm, which resulted in a flow rate to each bed of 0.285 gpm and a maximum flow rate to the entire system of 10 gpm. With 10 gpm needed for each garden bed for one hour the garden beds would require a maximum daily demand of 600 gallons, which was the maximum daily crop demand determined

53

using the Blaney-Criddle Method described in Section 3.1. The major friction losses to the system where calculated using the following equation (Plastics Pipe Institute, 2012): Equation 8 Where: Friction factor Furthest distance from pump (ft.) maximum velocity needed for the system (Qmax/A) (ft/m) Mainline pipe diameter (ft.) Gravity (ft/s2) Friction factor equations can be found in Appendix E. Initial assumptions and all results from calculations can be found in Table 27. Valves, bends (elbows), and other pipe fittings may have an effect on flow through the system due to friction loss. Due to the low number of bends and elbows from the pumps to the mainlines of the community garden irrigation and the park irrigation systems for this hydraulic anyslsis the minor friction losses were assumed to be insignificant when compared to the major friction losses (Table 27). Table 27: Assumptions and resulting calculations for the hydraulic analysis of the preferred alternative (Plastics Pipe Institute, 2012). Parameter Value Flow rate,max Qmax (gpm) 10 Flow rate,max , Qmax (cfs) 0.0223 Pipe length,max, Lmax (ft.) 326 Velocity, max, Vmax (ft/s) Diameter, D (ft.) Density, (slug/ft3) Viscosity, (lbf*s/ft2) Reynolds #,Re Roughness Coefficient, (in.) /D friction factor, f Tank/Pump elevation, Zin (ft.) Elevation Node1 , Zout (ft.) Friction Head, Major, hpump (ft.) Total Dynamic Head, TDH (ft.) Emitter Pressure (psi) Emitter Flow Rate, Qemitter (gpm) Gravity (ft./s2) 1.017 0.167 1.94 2.09E-05 1.58E+04 2.76E-04 1.65E-03 0.0165 31 28 5.17E-01 3.52E+00 20 3.76E-03 32.2

54

From a TDH value of 3.52 ft. and a maximum flow rate of 10 gpm a 5X3-6 process pump with 0.75 hp, 870 rpm speed, and 43.4% efficency was chosen (Figure 31). The pump performance curve that was used in EPANet can be found in (Table 28).

Figure 31: Pump performance curve of a 5X3-6 pump with a speed of 870 rpm, 0.75 hp motor, and an efficiency of 43.4% (American-Marsh, 2013). Table 28: Pump performance curve values used in EPANet for the hydraulic analysis of the Preferred Alternative (Zoeller , 2013). Flow Head (gpm) (ft.) 0 57 10 53 20 50 While the pump was running, the pressures in the tank decreased as the head in the tank decreased (Figure 32 & Figure 33). The pressure to the furthest bed was found to have a pressure of 33.36 psi which will be lowered further as the water flows through the valves and drip irrigation lines to the furthest emitter from the pump (in bed 35) (Figure 34), which signifies that the pipe diameters and chosen pump are optimal for the system.

55

Figure 32: Tank head versus time hydraulic analysis results from EPANet 2.0.

Figure 33: Tank pressure versus time results from the hydraulic analysis of the drip irrigation system using EPANet 2.0. Results illustrate that pressure decreases with tank level decreases.

56

Figure 34: Pressures during period of water demand at bed 35 using EPANet. Results illustrated that target pressures were met at furthest bed from the pump.

7.2.2 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

A hydrologic analysis using the average precipitation, the total water demand for the park and garden irrigation, and the tank storage was performed. The average precipitation from a wet (Figure 35), normal (Figure 36), and dry (Figure 37) water year resulted in fluctuations in the amount of time the tank storage would have available rainwater to be used for irrigation purposes. Using the total demand for the community gardens and park irrigation the tank would be emptied in approximately 38 days during an average water year. These results illustrate that during an average water year there would be a possibility that the irrigation system using rainwater could not be used for 150 days during the park and garden demand period, thus city water would need to be provided thus increasing the cost of the project. If the rainwater stored in the tank was used for garden irrigation only, the water in the tank would last for 83 days (empty for 105 days during demand period) (Figure 38). These results illustrate that the system could be used for a longer period of time if used only for garden irrigation. Also a decrease in the water demand would be needed as well as a irrigation schedule to prolong the tank water storage to be used for irrigation.

57

Figure 35: Hydrologic analysis of park and community gardens using a wet water year.

Figure 36: Hydrologic analysis of the park and community gardens using an average water year.

58

Figure 37: Hydrologic analysis of the park and community gardens using a dry water year.
20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.30 0.25

Water Volume (gal)

0.20

6,000
4,000 2,000 0

51

101

151

201
Julian Day

251

301

351

Precipitation (in)

Tank Storage (gal)

Garden Water Demand

Tank Storage - Garden Only

Figure 38: Hydrologic analysis using only the garden demand using an average water year.

7.2.3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The preferred alternative was subject to the same cost analysis as the previous alternatives, where a combination of component, O&M, construction, and tank costs were used to examine the capital cost of the system. As before, the capital cost was examined with both the use of free labor and without free labor. In comparison to the other alternatives, the capital cost for this system is more expensive but the

59

Precipitation (in)

performance and educational benefits from the system outweigh the disadvantages that come with this higher capital cost. The cost analysis was split up into the cost of the rainwater collection system (Table 29), the firstflush systems (Table 30), the storage tank system (Table 31), the garden irrigation system components (Table 32), and the park irrigation system components (Table 33). The largest capital cost of the preferred alternative was found to be the storage tank system at $6,258. The combined alternative capital cost was found to be $10,874, which resulted in a total system cost of $20,752. Table 29: Cost analysis of the rainwater collection system from the gutters to the storage tank. Piping Unit Cost Lengths (ft) Diam (in) Cost ($) Labor Cost ($) ($/ft) 1029 4 $ 1.40 $ 1,440.60 $ 1,828.94 Item Gutter Screen (6" x 20') 4" 90 degree 4" Tee Sub-Total Piping Components Unit Cost Unit ($) $ 5.99 20 $ $ 9.60 13.50 38 17 Cost ($) $ $ 119.80 364.80 Labor Cost ($) $ $ $ $ 11.98 36.48 22.95 1,900.35 $ 4,055.05

$ 229.50 $ 2,154.70

Collection Total Cost

Table 30: Cost analysis of the first-flush systems. Piping Diameter Unit Cost Labor Cost Lengths (ft) Cost ($) (in) ($/ft) ($) Piping Components Unit Cost Labor Cost Item Unit Cost ($) ($) ($) First Flush Sytem 30 17 $ 510.00 $ $ 51.00 561.00 First Flush System Total Cost

60

Table 31: Cost analysis of the storage tank system. Piping Components Item 20,000 gal tank Slim Tank Barrel Pump PGA 2" 2" Elbow 2" Tee 2" Whye 4" Pipe Float Valve Logic Controller 10 Ft Flex HDPE Unit Cost ($) $ 3,999.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 110.00 $ 100.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 77.47 3.00 4.00 12.00 1.40 35.00 250.00 10.00 Sub-Total Tank/Storage Total Unit 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 6 1 1 1 Cost ($) $ 3,999.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 110.00 $ 100.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 154.94 6.00 4.00 12.00 8.40 35.00 250.00 10.00 Labor Cost ($) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 399.90 100.00 11.00 10.00 15.49 0.60 0.40 1.20 0.84 3.50 25.00 1.00 568.93

$ 5,689.34 $

6,258.27

61

Table 32: Cost analysis of the garden irrigation system. Piping Diameter Unit Cost Lengths (ft) Cost ($) (in) ($/ft) 133 2 $ 0.70 $ 93.10 365 1 $ 0.50 $ 182.50 Piping Components Item 2" coupler 1" coupler 2" Ball Valve Manual 2" check valve 2" -> 1" PVC T In-line Valve (1") PGA 100 In-line PGA150 1.5" PGA 200 (2") 1" Manual Valve SST Rainbird Irrigation Controller (6 station) Soil Moisture Sensor (SMS) Rain Sensor 1" PVC T 2" PVC T 2" PVC cap 1" -> 3/4" valve (hose bib) Backflow Preventer (3/4") 3/4" pressure regulator 3/4" filter 3/4" (threads) to 1/2" (compression) 1/2" drip T 1/2" Poly Tubing (1000' coil) 1/8" Poly Tubing (100' roll) 1gph in line drip emitter 1/2" T (compression for poly) 1/8" barbed coupler 1/2" figure 8 closer Unit Cost ($) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2.00 0.59 18.00 19.00 3.50 23.90 55.50 77.47 8.00 165.00 114.00 25.00 1.50 4.00 Units 14 40 2 2 6 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 35 1 2 35 35 35 35 35 35 1 28 2660 35 140 70 Cost ($) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 28.00 23.60 36.00 38.00 21.00 47.80 16.00 165.00 114.00 25.00 52.50 4.00

Labor Cost ($) $ $ 118.20 324.38

Labor Cost ($) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2.80 2.36 3.60 3.80 2.10 4.78 1.60 16.50 11.40 2.50 5.25 0.40 0.60 12.25 10.89 31.50 17.50 12.25 8.02 7.90 33.57 85.12 15.75 1.96 2.03 738.99 $ 3,978.80

$ 3.00 $ 3.50 $ 3.11 $ 9.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.50 $ 2.29 $ 78.99 $ 11.99 $ 0.32 $ 4.50 $ 0.14 $ 0.29 Sub-Total

$ 6.00 $ 122.50 $ 108.85 $ 315.00 $ 175.00 $ 122.50 $ 80.15 $ 78.99 $ 335.72 $ 851.20 $ 157.50 $ 19.60 $ 20.30 $ 3,239.81

GARDEN IRRIGATION TOTAL COST=

62

Table 33: Cost analysis of the park irrigation components. Piping Unit Cost Lengths (ft) Diam (in) Cost ($) ($/ft) 1848 2 $ 0.70 $ 1,293.60 Piping Components Item Unit Cost ($) Unit Cost ($) 2" Ball Valve Manual $ 18.00 1 $ 18.00 2" check valve $ 19.00 1 $ 19.00 Soil Moisture Sensor (SMS $ 114.00 1 $ 114.00 Rain Sensor $ 25.00 1 $ 25.00 SST Rainbird Irrigation Controller $ 165.00 2 $ 330.00 (6 station) SST Rainbird Irrigation Controller $ 180.00 3 $ 540.00 (12 station) PGA 200 (2") $ 77.47 14 $ 1,084.58 Sprinkler Heads (1/2") $ 2.04 84 $ 171.36 2" -> 1" PVC T $ 3.50 84 $ 294.00 2" Cap 2" T $ $ 3.00 4.00 Sub-Total 14 14 $ 42.00

Labor Cost ($) $ 1,642.32

Labor Cost ($) $ 1.80 $ 1.90 $ 11.40 $ 2.50 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 33.00 54.00 108.46 17.14 29.40 4.20 5.60 1,911.71 5,899.25

$ 56.00 $ 3,987.54

PARK IRRIGATION TOTAL COST Table 34: Cost of the preferred alternative and the total system cost. Total System Cost ($) Comb. Alt. Total Capital Cost ($) $20,752.38 $10,874.33

Taking into account the 30 year planned lifespan of the project, a lifetime cost analysis was performed based on several assumptions. The first assumption was that 10% of the initial cost of PVC would have to be spent every year in order to conduct repairs, such as cracked pipes. The second assumption is based on the idea that all parts will only operate fo r the manufacturers suggested lifespan for that part. In this case, the water pump would have to be replaced every 10 years. The third assumption was that the future costs would follow a single payment present worth equation with a 2% interest rate. In addition the amount saved during the lifetime on purchasing water from the City was calculated and subtracted from the lifetime cost. In this way the total lifetime cost both with and without labor was found (Table 34).

63

Table 35: The capital cost, lifetime cost, and cost per gallon of the system using both paid and unpaid labor Paid Labor Volunteer Labor Capital Cost $15,823 $13,709 Lifetime Cost $35,305 $30,324 Cost per gallon of $1.76 $1.51 stored water In both cases, not enough money will be saved on the cost of city water to receive a return on investment for the system. In other words the cost of the system will result in a deficit of at least $30,000 dollars over its 30 year lifespan. Also shown in Table 35 is the cost per gallon of stored water over 30 years. In the best case scenario, the rainwater received by the system would be equivalent of paying $1.51 for every gallon of water used.

7.2.4 FIRST-FLUSH SYSTEM ANALYSIS

Using ArcView GIS (Geographic Information System), first-flush storage volumes were determined by dividing the total JCCP roof area into subareas based on roof pitch and locations of downspouts. Current onsite downspouts will not be relocated and will remain in its existing location. For this final alternative design, a new downspout on the west side of the JCCP building will be constructed for the purpose of filling the slim tank. In Figure 39, green dots represent downspouts connected to the sewer drain. Red dots are downspouts that drain directly to the surface next to the JCCP building. Green triangles are downspouts that connect to the adjacent downspout and green squares are downspouts that route water from a higher roof area onto a lower roof area. The white pentagon is the proposed location of a new downspout to connect with a slim rain tank against the building. Table 36 summarizes the amount of first-flush volume required for each roof areas downspouts. Nominal pipe diameters range from 4 in to 6 in with larger roof areas requiring 5 in and 6 in pipes to satisfy a recommended first-flush volume of 10 gallons for every 1,000 ft2 of roof area. Roof areas 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 13 will require 2 first-flush pipes in series to satisfy the recommended flush volume. A first-flush pipe length of 5 feet was assumed to maximize flush volume diversion while minimizing aesthetic impact of too long a pipe against the building.

64

Figure 39: Aerial view of divided roof areas and downspout locations for the first-flush analysis.

65

Table 36: Results of the first-flush analysis to determine the size of pipes necessary to flush 10 gallons of rainwater for every 1,000 square feet. First-flush Inner # of # of Roof Area per pipe firstdownspouts # (ft2) downspout diameter flush in roof area (gal) (in) pipes 1 313 1 3.1 4.026 1 2 4,952 4 12.4 6.065 2 3 1,248 0 0.0 0 0 4 272 1 2.7 4.026 1 5 3,420 2 17.1 6.065 2 6 1,597 1 16.0 6.065 2 7 2,024 2 10.1 5.047 2 8 679 1 6.8 4.026 2 9 498 1 5.0 5.047 1 10 1,151 3 6.0 4.026 2 11 662 1 0.0 0 0 12 711 1 0.0 0 0 13 1,017 2 14.9 6.065 2

7.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIRED

Once installed the rainwater catchment system will have to be maintained by volunteers in order to keep optimal operating conditions, including the replacement of parts and basic cleaning. The two biggest O&M concerns are the replacement of PVC parts and pumps. PVC pipe will have to be replaced whenever the pipe cracks or breaks, including those pipes located underground. This replacement can mostly be handled by volunteer labor and can be fixed with a length of pvc pipe, pipe couplings of the same size and PVC glue. The bigger replacement issue is pump replacement, which can occur approximately every 10 years according to manufactures recommended lifespan. This pump lifespan can be more or less than 10 years, simply due to luck and it is not unheard of for a pump to last 15 or even 20 years. Basic O&M concerns beyond replacement include the cleaning of the first flush tanks, main tank cleaning, and battery replacement on the sensors. In the case of the first flush, the end caps of the pipe tanks must be removed and wiped out to prevent clogging and removed built up debris. The main tank is also subject to cleaning once a year by adding a small amount of bleach to the tanks and flushing the lines. This kills bacteria or organisms that have built up in the tank. Finally, the batteries must be changed in each of the sensors when the batteries run out, which occurs approximately every 3 months.

7.4 LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The preferred alternative is limited in storage capacity, which results in not being able to meet the total water demand for the community gardens and park irrigation. The limited storage capacity is due to the limited project footprint and funding that can be used for storage tanks. Other limitations of the preferred alternative are groundwater, Humboldt County precipitation periods, and the existing underground pipes at the project site. 66

Groundwater is a limitation to the preferred alternative due to the fact that it is not taken into consideration when calculating the total park and garden water demand, which may resulted in a lower total demand. Groundwater may also impact the park and garden vegetation/crops during periods of higher groundwater levels. A groundwater study for the project site is recommended to determine the effects of groundwater on the park and gardens and how groundwater impacts the total water demand. Humboldt Countys rainfall is generally concentrated in the winter when th ere is no little to no demand for the park or gardens, which results in the storage tank filling very quickly in the winter and empting very quickly during demand periods. Rainwater used for flushing the toilets at the childcare center (or other buildings on the project site) is recommended to use the stored rainwater during off-season so that the water is not sitting unused until the on-season demand. The existing underground pipes are a limitation to the project due to issues that may result during installation of the preferred alternative. A study on the existing underground pipes is recommended to determine situations that may result from installation of the system. Other recommendations include putting safety factors in place around the rainwater catchment, storage, and irrigation systems such as cages, security fences, and locks on the stage door access as well as the rain barrel and slim tank. It is also recommended based on the hydrologic analysis (see Section 7.2.2) to limit use of the stored water for park irrigation, which would result in a larger period of system use during demand periods (Table 37). Table 37: A summary of the Limitations and Recommendations of the system

67

REFERENCES

AB275. (2011, February 07). California Assembly Bill 275. California, United States. Ace Hardware Corporation. (2013). Ace Hardware Website Gutter Prices. Retrieved from http://www.acehardware.com/home/index.jsp American-Marsh. (2013). 460 ANSI Pump Curve . Retrieved from American-Marsh Pumps: http://select.pumpflo.com/select/centrifugal/graph.aspx?cidx=1453&type=460_ANSI_OSD%2fRV&size=1L1.5 x3-6%2fRV&speed=900&stage=1&TRM=4.125&PSPD=870&NAM=americanmarsh.60.pmp&TYP=300_END_SUCTION_RDF|300_END_SUCTION_REC|300_END_SUCTION _REF|310_VRT_INLINE_REI Appropedia. (2013). When to Plant What on the Humboldt Coast. Retrieved from Appropedia: http://www.appropedia.org/images/7/7a/When2PlantHumboldtCounty.jpg ARCSA. (2013). American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association. Benzonelli, H. (2013, March). Client Meetings. Humboldt State University, Environmental Resources Engineering. Arcata, CA. Benzonelli, H. (2013, February 03). Jefferson Community Center and Park Site Visit and Client Meeting. Eureka, CA. BSC. (2010b, June). California Green Building Code. California Building Standards Commission. International Code Council. BSC. (2010c). California Historic Building Codes. California Building Standards Commission. Internation Code Council. BSC. (2012a, June). California Building Code. California Building Standards Commission. International Code Council. Bushman. (2010). BushmanUSA. Temecula, CA. Retrieved from http://www.bushmanusa.com/ CA State Parks & OGALS. (2009). Application Guide for the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program of 2008. Sacramento, CA: State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (CA State Parks) & Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS). CalClim. (2010, December 31). Eureka WSO City, California. Retrieved March 12, 2013, from California Climate Data Archive: http://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca2910 Cardenas-Lailhacar, B., Dukes, M. D., & Shedd, M. (2013, March 7). Smart Irrigation Controllers: How Do Soil Moisture Sensor (SMS) Irrigation Controllers Work? Retrieved from University of Florida IFAS Extension: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ae437 CDC. (2010). California Department of Conservation: 2010 Geologic Map of California. California Geological Survey. Retrieved from http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/GMC/stategeologicmap.html CDWR. (2013, Febuary 25). Eureka Woodley Island (ERK). Retrieved from California Data Exchange Center: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/queryDaily?s=ERK&d=25-Feb2013+18:25&span=30days CIMIS . (2013). ET Overview . Retrieved February 23, 2013, from California Irrigation Management Information System Department of Water Resources Office of Use Efficiency : http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/infoEtoOverview.jsp City of Eureka. (2013). Building Department Codes and Guildelines. Eureka, CA. D. Branum, S. H. (2008). Earthquake Shaking Potential for California. California Geological Survey. United States Geological Survey. Domestic Roofwater Harvesting Research Group . (2001). Recommendations for Designing Rainwater Harvesting System Tanks. Warwick . Dukes, M. D. (2013, March 8). Smart Irrigation Controllers: What Makes an Irrigation Controller Smart? Retrieved from University of Florida IFAS Extention: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ae442

68

Dultmeier Sales, LLC. (2013). Dultmeier Sales, LLC Website. Retrieved from http://www.dultmeier.com/ DWR. (2013). Water Data Library. California Department of Water Resources. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/groundwater/hydrographs/report_html.cfm Eureka General Plan. (2008, March 4). City of Eureka General Plan. Eureka, CA. Google Inc. (2013). Google Earth Version 7.0.2 [Software]. TerraMetrics. GOULDS PUMPS . (2007, Feburary 9). Pump Data Sheet-GOULDS . Retrieved 2003, from Bonneville Power Administration : http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/wntsc/Pump%20Curves/Goulds/3600/1MS%201x1 .5-6.pdf Greywater Action. (2013). Greywater Action for a Sustainable Water Culture. Rainwater Harvesting and Greywater Recycling Project. Retrieved from http://greywateraction.org/greywaterrecycling GROWNYC. (2008, August). Rainwater Harvesting 101. New York City, New York. Gupta, R. S. (2008). Hydrology and Hydraulic Systems 3rd Edition . Long Grove : Waveland Press. Kafin, R., Van Ooyen , M., & Leung, J. (2008). Rainwater Harvesting 101. New York: GrowNYC. Lowe's Home Improvement. (2013). Lowe's Home Improvement Website. Retrieved from lowes.com/ Manhard. (2012). Initial Study for Jefferson Community Center and Park. Eureka, CA: Manhard Consulting Ltd. Massey, S. (2012, April 11). Jefferson Park Awarded Over $3 Million. Humboldt Sentinel. Retrieved from http://humboldtsentinel.com/2012/04/11/jefferson-park-awarded-over-3-million/ Natural Resources Management and Environment Department. (1986). Irrigation water management, Training manuals. NOAA. (2013). NOAA ATLAS 14 POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES: CA. Retrieved February 24, 2013, from NOAA National Weather Service : http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=ca Nolasco, J. (2013). Sustainable Water Management for Urban Agriculture: Planting Justice. Oakland, CA: Pacific Institute. Retrieved from http://www.pacinst.org/reports/success_stories/sustainable_water_management_for_urba n_agriculture.pdf NWS. (2013, February 10). National Weather Service. Observed Weather Reports. Eureka, CA. Retrieved from http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=eka Plastics Pipe Institute. (2012). Design of PE Piping System. Irving . Rain Bird Corp. (2013). Rain Bird Corporation Website. Irrigation and Sprinkler Systems. Retrieved from http://www.rainbird.com/ Rick's Rain Gutters. (2013). Rick's Rain Gutter Website. Retrieved from ricksraingutters.com/ SHN Consulting Engineers and Geologists, INC. . (2003). Shallow Groundwater Contours. Eureka: Humboldt County Courthouse. Stringer, A., Vogel , J., Lay, J., & Nash , K. (2005). Design of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Oklahoma. Oklahoma City . Stryker, J. (2011). Drip Irrigation Design Guidelines. Irrigation Tutorials. Retrieved from http://www.irrigationtutorials.com/dripguide.htm Stryker, J. (2013). The Basic Parts of A Drip Irrigation System . Retrieved March 2013, from Irrigation Tutorials.com: http://www.irrigationtutorials.com/drip-parts.htm SWRCB. (2013). Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. State Water Resources Control Board. Texas Water Development Board. (2005). The Texas Manual on Rainwater Harvesting. Austin, Texas.

69

USDA. (2013). Official Soil Series Description. United States Department of Agriculture. National Cooperative Soil Survey, NCSS. National Resrouces Conservation Service, NRCS. Retrieved from http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html USGS. (2012a). United States Geological Survey: EHP Quaternary Faults. United States Department of the Interior. Retrieved from http://geohazards.usgs.gov/qfaults/map.php USGS. (2012b). United States Geological Survey: Historic Earthquakes. United States Department of the Interior. Retrieved from http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1980_11_08.php USGS. (2012c). United States Geological Survey: Geology Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data. United States Department of the Interior. Retrieved from http://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/state.php?state=CA Virtual Expo Group . (2013). Pillow Tanks . Retrieved from Archi Expo : http://www.archiexpo.com/architecture-design-manufacturer/pillow-tank-7589.html WCIA. (2013). Final Grant Proposal. Eureka, CA: Westside Community Improvement Association (WCIA). White, F. M. (2011). Fluid Mechanics Seventh Edition . New York : McGraw-Hill Companies, INC . Wilcox, S. (2013). Solar Radiation Monitoring Station (SoRMs) Humboldt State University . Retrieved from Humboldt State University : http://www.nrel.gov/midc/hsu/ WRCC. (2013, February). Western Regional Climate Center. Evapotration Stations. Retrieved from http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westevap.final.html Zoeller . (2013). Submersible Sump Pumps . Retrieved from Plumbing Supply.com: http://www.plumbingsupply.com/zoeller-submersible-pumps.html

70

APPENDICES

This section contains extra background information and analysis of alternatives.

9.1 APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS

Rainwater is defined as precipitations that has not been put to beneficial use and has not entered any other offsite stream drainage channel (such as a storm drain system or flood control channel). (AB275, 2011). Stormwater is temporary surface water runoff generated immediately preceding a storm event and interpreted consistent with Section 122.26 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations and may be subject to (AB275, 2011) Greywater is wastewater that from bathroom sinks, washtubs, showers, and washing machines that has not been contaminated by fecal matter, unhealthy bodily wastes, and does not present a threat from processing, manufacturing, or operation waste (SWRCB, 2013). A rain barrel system is a type of rainwater capture system that is not connected to a pressurized water distribution system and has non-electrical components. (AB275, 2011). A stormwater capture system is a facility designated to capture and retain stormwater that is flowing in the public right-of-way through the use of a public stormwater management or drainage system for subsequent use (AB275, 2011).

9.2 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATIVE RESEARCH

The following list contains alternatives considered for the project site but ruled out early due to high costs, lack of water storage, and safety factors. Storage pipes under ADA ramps: This alternative uses large diameter pipes instead of tanks. Based on sizing calculations, the space underneath the ADA ramps would not provide enough storage room for a proper rainwater catchment system to irrigate the gardens and field. Tanks placed on the building roof: This alternative was analyzed in the alternative section but ruled out early as well due to the high safety factor risk. The weight of the tanks on the roof may be unsuitable for the project site building. It is even unclear that solar panels will be able to be placed on the roof. Although it may seem desirable to take advantage of a gravity fed system, the same amount of components such as piping and pumps are required to deliver water into the tanks.

71

9.3 APPENDIX C: WATER DEMAND CALCULATIONS

TOTAL Growing Days 100 140 100 120 135 40 120 100 90 100 95 95 70 150 110 130 365 365 Growing Season Time Crop Coefficient (Kc) Crop Mid Late Initial Develop Crop Mid Late Averaged Season Season Initial (Days) ment Development Season Season Kc (days) (days) (days) 20 30 30 20 0.45 0.75 1.05 0.9 0.81 35 50 45 10 0.45 0.6 1 0.9 0.71 20 30 40 10 0.45 0.6 1 0.9 0.76 25 35 35 25 0.45 0.7 0.9 0.75 0.72 35 45 40 15 0.3 0.7 1.05 0.95 0.73 10 10 15 5 0.45 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.71 25 35 35 25 0.45 0.8 1 0.8 0.79 20 30 35 15 0.45 0.8 1.15 1.05 0.89 20 30 30 10 0.35 0.7 1.1 0.9 0.78 10 30 30 30 0.4 0.9 0.85 0.57 25 40 20 10 0.5 0.7 1 1 0.74 25 40 20 10 0.5 0.75 1 0.7 0.73 25 30 10 5 0.3 1 1 0.3 0.70 30 40 50 30 0.3 0.8 1.15 1 0.86 15 35 50 10 0.45 0.75 1.15 0.85 0.90 30 40 40 20 0.3 0.6 1.05 0.9 0.72 20 25 250 70 0.5 1 0.95 0.7 0.88 20 25 250 70 0.4 0.85 0.75 0.2 0.63

CROP

Carrots Lettuce Spinach Summer Squash Broccoli Radishes Pumpkins Peas Beans Cover Crops Onions Garlic Leeks Corn Potatoes Eggplant Artichokes Berries

72

9.4 APPENDIX D: DELPHI DECISION MATRIX

Alternative 1a
Criterion Cost Effectiveness Safety Aesthetics Educational Value Ease of Permitting Irrigation Weight 5 4 4 5 3 4

Alternative 1b Score 10.0 10 10 8 0 10 210 2 Alternative 3c Score 1.0 6 8 9 10 1 146 6 Weighted Score 5 30 32 45 30 4 Weighted Score 50 40 40 40 0 40

Alternative 2a Score 9.6 10 10 8 0 10 208 3 Alternative 3d Score 9.1 8 10 8 10 5 207 4 Weighted Score 45 32 40 40 30 20 Weighted Score 48 40 40 40 0 40

Alternative 2b Score 9.6 10 10 8 0 10 Weighted Score 48 40 40 40 0 40

Score 9.6 10 10 8 0 10

Weighted Score 48 40 40 40 0 40 208 3

Weighted Total Score Rank (1 is best) Alternative 3a Score 7.6 8 4 9 0 4 146 6 Weighted Score 38 32 16 45 0 15

Alternative 3b Score 8.0 7 6 9 0 4 152 5 Weighted Score 40 28 24 45 0 15

208 3 Combined Alternative Weighted Score Score 9.98 50 9 36 9 36 10 0 10 212 1 50 0 40

73

9.5 APPENDIX E: HYDRAULIC ANALSIS EQUATIONS

The friction factor was calculated using the following Haaland Equation (White, 2011): Equation 9 Where: Reynolds Number roughness coefficient (in.) Flow through pipes can be laminar, turbulent, or in transistion depending on the pipe diameter, the viscosity and density of the fluid, and the velocity. The dimensionless combinatio of these parameters is known as the Reynolds number and is a predictor of the nature of the flow. The Reynolds number was calculated using the following equaiton (Plastics Pipe Institute, 2012): Equation 10 Where: Density (slugs/ft3) Viscosity (lbf*s/ft2)

74