Stormwater management : synthesis report
Creators: name: Lai, Adam
name: Chang, Judy
name: Toma, Owni
name: Chow, Wincy
Publisher: name: The University of British Columbia
Year: 2014

description: This report tries to propose sustainable stormwater solutions for UBC and tests their commitments to overarching sustainability goals of the institution. The final evaluation of our four main concepts reveals that for each sustainability category (environmental, economic and social), there is not one concept that prevails in all three categories. Before factoring in the risk analysis, it seems like the wet swales option has the best results. The risk analysis shows that the water harvesting option (using open and closed cisterns) has the smallest probability for the cost of construction being more than estimated, and also the least impact on community and environment if something were to go wrong during operation. It is up to Utilities staff to decide the importance of risk in selecting a viable option. This pocket wetland option scored well in the social and environmental sustainability categories, yet was tied for weakest in the economic and risk. The environmental benefits are clearly positive since it stores the most water out of all the options and ultimately reduces water use on the farm by 50% annually, however can cost between $145,000 - $410,000. The wet swale option scored well in the social, environmental and economic categories. Out of all the options it has the lowest projected cost at $31,000 - $74,000, contributes to its surrounding environment by incorporating native vegetation and will be able to hold a sizable amount of water annually. Yet it is also the weakest option in the risk analysis, tied with pocket wetlands. This is because the swale is an open channel, deals with contaminated runoff and may require reworking existing (uncharted) piping in the area. The water square is ranked third or fourth in most of the categories which suggests it is not a strong option. This is because of the large construction costs ($200,000+). However it is able to store a significant amount of water (2nd best from the group). The fact that it does not rank well does not mean it is a weak option – UBC is in the beginning stages of building a skatepark on campus and the two designs have a fair bit of overlap and so there is a potential to benefit from a co-design process. The water harvesting option ranks higher in the social and economic aspects but appears to rank as the weakest option in terms of the environmental impact relative to the other options since it only provides the Plant Ops Nursery with 16% of its irrigation needs. This option is the least risk-prone option according to our evaluation of risk indicators. It does not store as much water as others, but is well suited to provide water for irrigating the Nursery during peak times. This option can be considered a potential low risk pilot project. We suggest further research with a specialist on the wet swales and the water harvesting options to provide a more accurate evaluation for UBC. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”