Developing a Life Cycle Assessment Impact Indicator for Water Resources in the Built Environment

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Developing a Life Cycle Assessment Impact Indicator for Water Resources in the Built Environment
Physical Description:
1 online resource (77 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Chhabra,Neetika
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.B.C.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Building Construction
Committee Chair:
Ries, Robert J.
Committee Members:
Frank, Kathryn
Kibert, Charles J

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
The future availability of adequate fresh water is a key sustainability issue and has become a serious global concern. ?Consumptive? water loss consists of that portion of water withdrawn or withheld from aquifers or surface water bodies and is assumed to be lost or otherwise not returned to that resource due to evapotranspiration, incorporation into products, other processes or transfer to other sources (Great Lakes Commission, 2003). This leads to the reduced availability of fresh water in the regional environment. The built environment includes buildings and infrastructure and is a major contributor to the environmental loads generated by society. Analyzing the life cycle of the built environment offers the possibility to understand its main impacts on natural resources. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an analytical tool for measuring the potential environmental impact of any product or service while analyzing its entire life cycle. The results are expressed as midpoint indicators (characterization factors) which measure changes in environmental mechanisms and/or endpoint indicators which represent environmental impacts. The application of LCA to the construction industry has principally been in three different ways: using LCA for the analysis of building materials and the construction process; building operations, and end-of-life. While considerable attention has been paid to the LCA of buildings in terms of energy, relatively little has been quantified in terms of water use and water ?consumption? in the built environment. Recent works have recognized the need to differentiate between consumptive and non-consumptive water use in life cycle impact assessment. The aim of this thesis is to (1) review the existing models or impact assessment practices of water use, (2) identify and/or generate characterization factors and develop a water resource life cycle impact assessment model for built environment, and (3) illustrate the application of the model in three case studies at various scales. This research examines the various pathways through which the consumptive water loss occurs in a built environment. Inflow and outflow variables from a water resource system have been identified. The approach to estimating impact is to compare the modeled aquifer and surface water discharge in the built environment in the current developed condition to a hypothetical pristine state with the ratio of the current and pristine states representing the relative impact. Once the impact assessment indicator was developed, the model was applied to various geographical scales: hydrological units in Florida, the University of Florida campus, and Rinker Hall. Using the model in a life cycle assessment during the planning stage for an individual site, a regional development, or a watershed level plan development can help assess the impact on water resources. It will help in adopting strategies which will minimize as well as evenly distribute the impact on the associated water resources.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Neetika Chhabra.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local:
Adviser: Ries, Robert J.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID:
UFE0043484:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 DEVELOPING A LIFE CY CLE ASSESSMENT IMPAC T INDICATOR FOR WATE R RESOURCES IN THE BUI LT ENVIRONMENT By NEETIKA CHHABRA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUI REMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Neetika Chhabra

PAGE 3

3 To my dear pa rents, for their continuous support and motivation throughout my life

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would lik e to express my gratitude to my committee chairman, Dr. Robert Ries for his continuing support throughout my university career and for providing the opportunity to work with him as his research student. His guidance and patient encouragement aided the writ ing of this thesis. I would like to thank Dr. Charles Kibert and Dr. Kathryn Frank for their guidance and feedbacks during the process. I would also like to thank Chris Whitehurst at the Physical Plant Department, University of Florida for providing the da ta required for this research. Special thanks to my research colleague Rodrigo and my friends Rajiv and Gowri for their availability for much needed discussion at all times.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACK NOWLEDGEMENTS ................................ ................................ ............................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 12 Life Cycle Assessment ................................ ................................ ............................ 13 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 14 Statement of Purpose ................................ ................................ ............................. 15 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 16 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 17 Water Consumption Indicators ................................ ................................ ................ 17 Water Scarcity I ndicators ................................ ................................ ........................ 19 LCA and Freshwater Resource Depletion ................................ ............................... 20 Regionalized Assessment ................................ ................................ ....................... 22 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ............... 24 Water Pathway and System Analysis ................................ ................................ ..... 24 Water Pathway Analysis ................................ ................................ ................... 24 System Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................... 27 Variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 28 Impact Indicators ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 30 4 MODEL APPLICATION AND ANALYSIS ................................ ............................... 32 Assessing the Impact Indicator Value for the Built environment in Florida .............. 32 Model Data Extraction ................................ ................................ ...................... 32 Results and Analysis ................................ ................................ ........................ 37 Assessing the Impact Indicator Values for the University of Flo rida Campus ......... 40 Model Data Extraction ................................ ................................ ...................... 40 Results and Analysis ................................ ................................ ........................ 42 Assessing the Impact Indicator Value for Rinker Hall ................................ ............. 43 Model Data Extraction ................................ ................................ ...................... 43 Results and Analysis ................................ ................................ ........................ 45 Comparing the Impact Indicators obtained for St. Johns HU, UF campus and Rinker Hall ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 46

PAGE 6

6 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ....................... 48 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 48 Recommendations for Future Studies ................................ ................................ ..... 49 APPENDIX A CALCULATING VARIABLES FOR BUILT ENVIRONMENT IN FLORIDA .............. 51 B CALCULATING VARIABLES FOR UF CAMPUS ................................ ................... 71 C CALCULATING VARIABLES FOR RINKER HALL ................................ ................. 73 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 75 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 77

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table p age 3 1 Variables used in the model ................................ ................................ ............... 30 4 1 Recharge, precipitation (R p ) and Discharge, precipitation (D p ) values for HU 0308, St. Johns ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 35 4 2 Withdrawal, aquifer (W aq ) and withdrawal, surface water (W s ) values for HU 0308, St. Johns ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 35 4 3 Recharge, urban (R u ) and discharge, urban (D u ) values for HU 0308, St. Johns ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 36 4 4 Net Recharge (R aq ), net discharge (D n ) and total d ischarge to surface water (D w ) for HU 0308, St. Johns ................................ ................................ ................ 37 4 5 Aquifer and surface water indicator values for all HUs in Florida ........................ 39 4 6 Aquifer and surface water variables and indicator values for UF campus .......... 42 4 7 Aquifer and surface water variables and indicator values for Rinker Hall ........... 46 4 8 Aquifer and surface water variables and indicator values for St. Johns HU, UF Campus and Rinker Hall ................................ ................................ .............. 46 A 1 Calculating Re charge, precipitation (Rp); Discharge, precipitation (Dp) and Evaporation from precipitation for HUs Florida ................................ ................... 51 A 2 Accounting for all fresh water input to the built environment in HUs Flori da ....... 55 A 3 Aquifer and surface water recharge from irrigation for all counties in Florida ..... 57 A 4 Waste water reuse in all cou nties in Florida ................................ ....................... 60 A 5 Recharge, urban (R u ) for all counties in Florida ................................ .................. 62 A 6 Discharge, urban (Du) for all counties in Fl orida ................................ ................. 64 A 7 Calculating Withdrawal from Aquifer (Waq); Recharge, urban (Ru); Withdrawal from surface water (Ws); Discharge, urban (Du) for HUs Florida .... 66 A 8 Calculating Impact indicator for ground and surface water resource in HUs Florida ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 70 B 1 Calculating Recharge, precipitation (Rp); Discharge, precipitation (Dp) and Evaporation from precipitation for UF Campus ................................ ................... 71

PAGE 8

8 B 2 Calculating Withdrawal, aquifer (Waq) for UF Campus ................................ ...... 72 B 3 Calc ulating Recharge, urban (R u ) for UF Campus ................................ .............. 72 B 4 Calculating Discharge, urban (D u ) for UF Campus ................................ ............. 72 C 1 Calculating Recharg e, precipitation (Rp); Discharge, precipitation (Dp) and Evaporation from precipitation for Rinker Hall ................................ .................... 73 C 2 Calculating Withdrawal, aquifer (Waq) for Rinker Hall ................................ ........ 73 C 3 Calculating Recharge, urban (R u ) for Rinker Hall ................................ ............... 74 C 4 Calculating Discharge, urban (D u ) for Rinker Hall ................................ ............... 74

PAGE 9

9 L IST OF FIGURES Figure p age 3 1 Water pathway of extracted ground water for use in the built environment ........ 25 3 2 Water pathway of extracted surface water for the built environment .................. 26 3 3 Water pathways from precipitation ................................ ................................ ..... 26 3 4 Simplified depiction of the water flows related to withdrawals and precipitation included in the model ................................ ................................ ..... 28 3 5 Average values for infiltration, runoff, and evapo transpiration for four l and use types (USEPA 1993) ................................ ................................ .................... 29 4 1 Map of the hydrologic unit sub regions in Florida ................................ ............... 33 4 2 Map showing intersection of hydrolo gic units and counties ................................ 34 4 3 Impact indicator results for the aquifer from the prototypical water resource model for hydrologic units in Florida ................................ ................................ ... 38 4 4 Impact indicator results for surface water from the prototypical water resource model for hydrologic units in Florida ................................ .................... 39 4 5 Extent of UF Campus considered in the c ase study ................................ ........... 40 4 6 Various land uses within built environment of UF campus ................................ 41 4 7 Extent of Rinker Hall site ................................ ................................ .................... 43 4 8 Various land uses within the Rinker Hall building site ................................ ......... 44

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulf illment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction DEVELOPING A LIFE CY CLE ASSESSMENT IMPAC T INDICATOR FOR WATER RESOURCES IN T HE BUILT ENVIRONMENT By Neetika Chhabra August 2011 Chair: Robert J. Ries Major: Buildin g Construction The future availability of adequate fresh water is a key sustainability issue and has become a serious global concern. water withdrawn or withheld from aquifers or surface water bodies an d is assumed to be lost or otherwise not returned to that resource due to evapotranspiration, incorporation into products, other processes or transfer to other sources (Great Lakes Commission, 2003). This leads to the reduced availability of fresh water in the regional environment. The built environment includes buildings and infrastructure and is a major contributor to the environmental loads generated by society. Analyzing the life cycle of the built environment offers the possibility to understand its ma in impacts on natural resources. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an analytical t ool for measuring the potential environmental impact of any prod uct or service while analyzing its entire life cycle The results are expressed as midpoint indicators (character ization factors) which measure changes in environmental mechanisms and/or endpoint indicators which represent environmental impacts.

PAGE 11

11 The application of LCA to the construction industry has principally been in three different ways: using LCA for the analysi s of building materials and the construction process; building operations, and end of life. While considerable attention has been paid to the LCA of buildings in terms of energy, relatively little has been quantified in Recent works have recognize d the need to differentiate between consumptive and non consumptive water use in life cycle impact assessment. The aim of this thesis is to (1) r eview the existing models or impact as sessment prac tices of water use, (2) i dentify and/or generate characterization factors and develop a water resource life cycle impact assessment model for built environment, and (3) i llustrate the application of the model in three case studies at various scales. This r esearch examines the various pathways through which the consumptive water loss occurs in a built environment. I nflow and outflow variables from a water resource system have been identified. The approach to estimating impact is to compare the modeled aquife r and surface water discharge in the built environment in the current developed condition to a hypothetical pristine state with the ratio of the current and pristine states representing the relative impact. Once the impact assessment indicator was develope d, the model was applied to various geographical scales: hydrological units in Florida, the University of Florida campus and Rinker Hall U sing the model in a life cycle assessment during the planning stage for an individual site a regional development or a watershed level plan development can help assess the impact on water resources It will help in adopting strategies which will minimize as well as evenly distribute the impact on the associated water resources.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background The water resources of the Earth are comprise d of fresh water found on and under the surface of Earth and the vast salt water reserves of the oceans. With water covering about 80% of the planet, the water resources may seem to be unlimited. However, upon clos er inspection, it has been found that these water resources are at risk, and they are not as unlimited as one may think. The freshwater that is utilized for human consumption constitutes only 2.5% of the total available water on Earth (Shikhlomanov and Rod da, 2003). All of the potable water comes from two sources: groundwater in underground aquifers or surface water in lakes, rivers, streams and springs These sources re plenish themselves through the hydrological cycle. This is where water moves from the s urface of the Earth to the air through evaporation and return s to the surface as rain fall or other form of precipitation. A significant concern is that human interference in the environment has placed serious demands on these water resources. For example, in some areas ground water is being utilized more quickly than it is replenished. In Central Asia, the diversion of rivers for irrigation purposes caused the desiccation of the Aral Sea which has disturbed ecosystems in the adjacent regions (Lasserre 2005) With massive amounts of fresh water being used to meet the needs of civilization, the future availability of adequate fresh water has become a serious concern. various s elect activities leads to adverse environmental impacts on water resources.

PAGE 13

13 the underground aquifers or surface reservoirs and is assumed to be lost or otherwise not retu rned to that resource due to evapotranspiration, incorporation into products, other processes (Great Lakes Commission, 2003) or transfer to an other resource. This leads to the reduced quantity of fresh water in the environment. consu source from where it was withdrawn. This does not lead to change in quantity but may cause a change in quality. The built environment can be regarded as the urban and suburban e nvironment which includes buildings and the surrounding open spaces. The built environment is a major contributor to the environmental loads generated by society. Man made surroundings and human activities have impacted many natural resources. The depletio n of natural resources for energy and materials has grown exponentially with the Life Cycle Assessment Life cycle assessment or life cycle analysis (LCA) is a standardized method for measuring the environmental impact of any product or service. It is becoming an increasingly widespread tool for environment decision making to determine sustainable product and technology choices The LCA framework consists of four phases which are described as follows: G OAL AND SCOPE DEFINI TION In this phase, the purpose and boundary of LCA study is established. L IFE CYCLE INVENTORY (LCI) This phase involves the quantification of all inputs and outputs for a product or process throughout its entire lifecycle according to the requirements of the goal and scope definition.

PAGE 14

14 L IFE C YCLE I MPACT A SSESSMENT (LCIA) This phase aims at evaluating the environmental impacts of the product quantified in the inventory analysis. This involves four steps. In the first step classification, the impacts are classified according to the environmental impacts they contribute to. In the second step categorization, the results are expressed as indicating factors which are based on cause effect chain of natural syst ems. The indicating factors can be classified into two types: midpoint (characterization) and endpoint indicators. Midpoint indicators relate to environmental mechanism. For example, the amount of CO2 produced during energy production from a source has bee n used as a midpoint indicator. An e ndpoint indicator relates directly to an environmental effect For example, the environmental impacts of CO2 emissions such as the effects of global warming on human health ha ve been used as an endpoint indicator. The ne xt steps are normalization and weighting in which result parameters are aggregated even further into limited number of impact categories. I NTERPRETATION This phase deals with the evaluation and analysis of the results with respect to goal and scope defini tion. However, despite central role in environmental assessment hydrological aspects are only rarely considered in LCA at present W ater as a resource has been virtually ignored in LCA and t his tool should be able to include the environmental impa cts of freshwater use. LCA is an important tool for use in applications to buildings and construction activities. Analyzing the entire life cycle of a building offers the possibility to understand its main impacts on natural resources. It helps to create a n overview of the intervention areas and to learn how to reduce the environmental footprint of the building. While considerable attention has been paid to the LCA of buildings in terms of energy, environment. Problem Statement Pre development water flows are altered in several ways when development occurs. For example, water extraction for both consumptive and non consumptive uses

PAGE 15

15 generally increases with development. Imperv iousness is altered by building and infrastructure construction, and stormwater structures are typically put in place to manage stormwater flows. These changes affect the quantity of water and the flow regime in an ecosystem compared to the pre development or pristine state. Statement of Purpose Historically, the typical practice for impact assessment of water use as a resource in life cycle assessment (LCA) was to calculate an inventory for water use reported on a mass or volume basis e.g. volume of availa ble fresh water in a watershed Recent work has examined the relative scarcity of water resources in regions around the world and compared that to withdrawals (Pfister et al. 2009) using the water stress concept as the basis of the impact calculation (UN 1 997). Other recent work reviews water resource impact models and concludes that virtual water and the water stress index are a promising approaches for estimating water resource use (Canals et al. 2009). However such studies do not distinguish the source of water from which it is obtained and thus they do not address the issue of resource depletion. These and others clearly recognize the need to differentiate between consumptive and non consumptive water use in life cycle impact assessment as consumptive w ater use causes a decrease in the local availability of water. This work will examine the input of water to th e built environment and the impacts of development on water resources. An impact assessment model for aquifers and surface water resources was dev eloped based on simple hydrological principles. The characterization factors suggested will help in assessing the impact a development causes to its resources. Although the case studies considered here belong to the built environment in regions which have aquifers

PAGE 16

16 as their major water resources, the model application can be extended to other land uses in depend ent of the source of water. Overview Chapter 2 is a review of literature in this area of study. This section has been divided into three parts: water consumption indicators, water scarcity indicators and regionalized assessment. Water consumption indicators such as Virtual Water (VW) and Water Footprint which are consumption based environmental system analysis tools will be addressed. The description wi ll involve the role of LCA in these indicators. Certain midpoint indicators such as water stress indicator and water use per resource, which address the impact on water resources, have been discussed in detail. The advantages of regionalized assessment and related literature have been examined. Chapter 3 will introduce the analysis which has been adopted in the study to develop the impact assessment indicators. The indicators have been developed using a hydrological model. The model consists of several vari ables, all of which are laid out in detail in this chapter. The methodology of this model will be laid out in this section, including the relationships of the variables that are proposed. Chapter 4 presents the three case studies at three different scales: Hydrological unit, regional area, and building site The proposed model is applied to these scenarios and impact indicator values have been calculated. The results have been compared and analyzed. Various inferences have been drawn based on the results ob tained. Chapter 5 will include a summary of the study, the conclusions. a discussion of the limitations of the proposed water resources impact indicator model and recommendation s for future research.

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The past research related to water use in products consists of water consumption and water scarcity indicators. The former calculated the inventory of water use reported on mass or volume basis, i.e. total water consumed for producing a good or service whereas the later indicato rs were expressed as ratios which represented relative depletion of associated water resources. Water C onsumption I ndicators also known as ( (Herendeen, 2004) Virtual water has b een defined as the amount of direct and indirect water required to produce a good, service or entity. V irtual water accounting requires that the transpi (withdrawal of ground or surface water) and dilution water (dilution volume necess ary to assimilate pollution) are tracked (Chapagain et al. 2005). Allan created the concept of v irtual water in the early 1990s (Allan, 1993, 1994) wh ile analyzing the option of importing virtual water (as oppos ed to real water) as a partial solution to problems of water scarcity in the Middle East. Allan further developed the idea of using virtual water imports e.g., food imports as a tool to remove pressure on scarce domestic water resources. The concept was of worldwide cotton consumption. The results were expressed as blue, green and dilution water footprint of cotton production for some countries and their total worldwide water footprint However, such studies did not identify the source of the water consumed in the products and hence they did not address the impacts on water resources related to the water use.

PAGE 18

18 Owens (2001) has described two types of withdrawals: In stream water use and Off stream water withdrawal In stream use refers to the use of water with in the natural water body e.g., hydropower production and transport on waterways while water withdrawals represent off stream use e.g. industr ial and domestic uses The impact indicator from the latter is compr ise d of two components: (1) surface withdrawals from sustainable sources that are returned to the original basins and (2) groundwater withdrawals from sustainably recharged aquifers returned to usable surface waters. This covers the majority of water volum es in most systems. Water consumption can be divided into two categories: (1) evaporative losses and other conveyance losses for both surface and groundwater withdrawals and (2) transfers to a different water basin (Owens, 200 1 ). Owens (2001) proposed a de tailed set of indicators for LCA of water resources to address (1) the total quantity of water entering the system as inputs, (2) whether the water sources for these inputs are renewable and sustainable, and (3) whether the water outputs are returned to th e original surface basin so that downstream human and ecological users are not deprived of adequate water volumes. Water footprint concept introduced in 2002 (Hoekstra and Hung 2002) is one response to the unsustainable use of global freshwater resources especially in agriculture. The water footprint concept is similar to the virtual water concept and has been applied to a wide range of commodities but the difference between the two is that water footprint considers the geographic location of withdrawal s As with carbon footprinting (SETAC 2008), LCA has been used as a framework for delivering

PAGE 19

19 delivered services, business operations, and consumer behavior. The wate r footprint indicator is based on water consumption and could provide useful information in addition to the traditional production sector b ased indicators of water use (Hoekstra and Hung, 2005). The water footprint of a country can be calculated by adding the volume of water required for the production of the goods and services consumed by the inhabitants of the country. The four major factors which determine the water footprint of a country are: the volume of consumption which is related to gross national income; the consumption pattern e.g. high versus low product consumption; the climate i.e., the climate conditions relative to crop growth; and agricultural practice s, particularly the intensity of water use (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2006). The above d iscussed indicators are based on the water withdrawn and neglect the quantity of water output from the system. Thus they cannot be applied to the built environment which has both input and output of water. Water Scarcity I ndicators Lindfors et al. (1995) proposed an indicator for assessing the depletion of water resources. The indicator is defined as the ratio between the global reserves of the resource to the amount of the resource that is consumed. In this way, the indicator estimates the number of years that the activity can go until the reserve is exhausted. UN (1997) introduced the concept of water stress index (WSI) which is defined as the ratio of water withdrawn to water availability on an annual basis in a country. The severity of water scarcity wa s ranked as follows: WSI < 0.1, no water stress; 0.1 < WSI < 0.2, low water stress; 0.2 < WSI < 0.4, moderate water stress; 0.4 < WSI < 0.8 high

PAGE 20

20 water stress; and WSI > 0.8, very high water stress (UN 1997). WSI is an important concept that categorizes th e level of impairment of a large scale hydrological system. The pressure indicator or scarcity of freshwater resources defined by OECD (2004) is the intensity of use of water resources which expressed as ratio of abstractions to available water resources. A consumption of a share greater than 40% of the renewable resources is seen as a high pressure while 20% is regarded as medium. Using this indicator and percentages, Frischknecht et al. (2008) calculated the country or region specific weighting terms whic h is expressed in a ratio of water consumption in a region to acceptable pressure and, for example, defined medium pressure as 20%. LCA and Freshwater Resource D epletion Most LCA studies and databases of freshwater use simply quantify the total input of wa ter in products and some determine the water source e.g., the Ecoinvent database while neglecting the water outputs from the system. The scheme suggested by Rebitzer et al., (2007) considered water output categories, providing an initial concept for mea ningful inventory balances, for both directly and indirectly related processes. The withdrawal volume supplies insufficient information for freshwater use assessment. Therefore, there is a need to differentiate between freshwater use and consumption in the life cycle inventory because it helps to calculate the evaporative losses in the products or activities and thus helps in assessing the freshwater availability for both humans and ecosystem (Koehler 2008). Mila i Canals et al., (2008) examined the LCA of water resource use and suggested two main aspects of water : water as resource for humans and water for the

PAGE 21

21 ecosystem Based on these two aspects, four main pathways were identified: (1) changes in fresh water availability that affect human health, (2) chan ges in freshwater availability affecting ecosystem quality, (3) groundwater withdrawal causing depletion, and (4) land use changes leading to changes in the water cycle and therefore affecting ecosystem quality. The water use per resource (WUPR) was used a s the characterization factor for ecosystem impact which was originally developed by Raskin et al., (1997). The midpoint indicator adapted for assessing fresh water depletion is abiotic depletion potential (ADP) which was originally suggested as a baselin e method for abiotic resource depletion in the CML 2001 guide (Guinee et al., 2002). Mila i Canals et al., (2008) pointed out that the problem with this approach is that groundwater reserves are seldom quantified in terms of their relative abundance compar ed to potential use, with the exception of small aquifers. Bayart et al ., (2010) suggested a conceptual framework for assessing off stream freshwater use through LCA and set the basis for the development of operational schemes as well as LCIA methods and c haracterization factors for water use. Three impact pathways are considered to be affected by fresh water use, corresponding to the availability of this resource for human needs, ecosystems, and future generations. These three new midpoint categories are e differentiate the value of the resource according to water types based on indicators such as water resource type or freshwater quality. Building on the midpoint categories proposed, impact pathways are extended to endpoint categories within three areas of protection (AoP) commonly accepted in LCIA: human life (human health and labor),

PAGE 22

22 biotic environment (biodiversity and biotic productivi ty), and abiotic environment (abiotic natural environment, abiotic natural resources, and abiotic man made environment). Regionalized Assessment Regionalization is recognized as an important step towards improving the accuracy and precision of LCA results, thereby allowing the analysis of impacts on different levels. To allow for proper impact assessment, regions have to be modeled individually or attributed to classes of defined features (archetypes). For impacts on the regional water balance, spatial diff erentiation proves to be of great value as water flows are location dependent. For example, an area might not show overall water scarcity when considered at a large scale; however some regions within it might have water scarcity which may be compensated w ith higher availability in other regions. Thus it becomes important to consider spatial planning of land use scheme to judge the impact of land use on water flows (Heuvelmans et al. 2005). Water Global Assessment and Prognosis model (WaterGAP2) comprises t wo main components, a Global Hydrology Model and a Global Water Use Model (Alcamo et al., 2003a, Alcamo et al., 2003b). The Global Hydrology Model simulates the characteristic macro scale behavior of the terrestrial water cycle to estimate water resources, while the Global Water Use m odel computes water use for the following sectors : households, industry, irrigation, and livestock. The ratio of water use to availability provides an indication of water scarcity. All calculations cover the entire land surface of the globe (except Antarctica) and are performed on a 0.5 degree longitude by 0.5 deg ree latitude spatial resolution which is roughly equal to 60 miles by 60 miles.

PAGE 23

23 Pfister, et.al, (2009) further developed regionalized models to calculate spatially expl icit impact factors with global coverage for more than 10,000 watersheds for 3 different midpoints and applied them to a LCA of crop production and other water intensive industries. They utilized a geographic information system (GIS) to gather data on diff erent spatial resolutions. Impact factors were calculated for countries and at major watershed levels. They also advanced the concept of the initially developed in UN (1997) and calculated it on the basis of the data collected from 10, 000 individual watersheds using the WaterGAP2 model, which served as the characterization factor in the impact analysis. The spatial scales of the model include country, river basin and grid scales. The Water Stress Index (WSI) has been assessed at the wa tershed level. The research modeled the impact of fresh water consumption on human health, ecosystem quality and water resources. The damage induced by water consumption on human health has been measured in disability adjusted life years (DALY). The effect s on terrestrial ecosystem quality were assessed with the potentially disappeared fraction (PDF) of species. Desalination of seawater was used as the backup technology based on a concept developed by Stewart and Weidema (2005). The backup technology concep freshwater use as the environmental consequences of future provision of water from, for example the desalination of saltwater, which ultimately might be applied to compensate the freshwater presently depleted by human activities. All the models and indicators discussed so far do not address the hydrological cycle in a built environment. They have been applied to the cases at country or global scales which are not appropriate for evaluating the built environment

PAGE 24

24 CHAPTE R 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The aim of this research was to develop a life cycle assessment impact indicator for water resources in the built environment. A model of the impact of the built environment on water resources was developed Development af fects the quantity of water and the flow regime in an ecosystem compared to the predevelopment or pristine state. The impact on water resources was defined by the ratio of key variables in the two states. A prototypical model was developed using water path way analysis and system analysis as described in the following sections. The prototype was used to model ground and surface water in a theoretical undeveloped or pristine state and a developed state. Water P athway and S ystem A nalysis Water Pathway A nalysis A building affect s water quantity available in its ecosystem compared to the pre development or pristine state in two ways: firstly by increasing the relative withdrawal and secondly, by altering water flows and pathways Increase in consumption : Land in the pristine state does not withdraw water from aquifers or surface waters. However, the built environment needs water withdrawals for activities happening within it This includes water extraction for uses such as domestic and commercial use, industries, power generation and space cooling For example, electricity consumption increases with development and al so the water evaporated during the power plant cooling process Around 0.14 gallons of water is lost for every kWh of electricity consumed at the po int of end use in Florida thus contributing to evaporative loss ( Torcellini et al. 2003).

PAGE 25

25 Water pathway : Figure 3 1 and Figure 3 2 show the pathway of extracted groundwater and surface water respectively through the built environment and including wastewa ter treatment U rban water systems are a network of supply and sewer pipes (Krothe et al., 2002). All of the water supplied by utilities to the system does not reach the buildings. About 10% 12% of the supplied water is lost in underground pipe leaks whic h infiltrates into the ground (Lerner 1986). If this leakage recharges the same source from which it was withdrawn then it is considered a recharge, and if it enters another source it is considered a water transfer. The waste water coming out of the buildi ng is less than the supplied water because of the activities which cause evaporation or consumptive loss such as irrigation and power generation. Around 10% 12% of the waste water produced leaks into the ground water while travelling to waste water treatme nt plants. The path of wastewater produced is traced until it evaporates or recharges water resources Any evaporative loss changes the availability of water in the resource under analysis. Figure 3 1. Water pathway of extracted ground water for use in the built environment

PAGE 26

26 Figure 3 2. Water pathway of extracted surface water for use in the built environment Alteration in recharge: A change in land cover changes the characteristics of that surface. One of the most important properties, imperviousness, which is a measure of water percolation through the soil and other materials to the aquifer, is highly affected due to development. For example, although forest cover and domestic lawns both seem to be green areas, due to the compaction of soil in lawns, infiltration is reduced from 25% to 21% and runoff is increased from 10% to 20%. Infrastructure such as roads and some stormwater structures put in place to manage stormwater flows can cause an increase in relative imperviousness. These changes affect prec ipitation infiltration, stormwater runoff, aquifer r echarge and surface water flows. Figure 3 3 Water pathways from precipitation Figure 3 2 shows the pathway of precipitation falling on a land surface. The precipitation volume incident on a land surfac e either evaporates, runs off to streams, or infiltrates to ground water resources. If the runoff is collected and injected to a water

PAGE 27

27 resource other than the water supply source of the urban environment under analysis, then it is a transfer of water. If t he collected runoff is put to use, then it either adds to consumptive losses runoff, or infiltration, depending on the usage and disposal. The evaporative losses from the collected water used are calculated in the same way as described in Figure 3 1 Figu re 3 2 and Figure 3 3 Increases in the evaporative loss of water due to land cover alteration impact the availability of water in the aquifer and surface water resources. System Analysis A watershed can be considered as a system comprising of land and its associated aquifers and surface water resources. The water enters the system as precipitation and leaves as evaporation from the land surface or discharge to a surface water source. The model accounts for the inflows and outflows of water to aquifers and their associated springs and streams in a watershed basin including recharge from precipitation, withdrawals from municipal or self supplied wells or directly from surface waters, and discharges from wastewater treatment facilities to, for example, aquife rs and streams and partial recharge from water use in, for example irrigation The water pathways shown in Figures 3 1 and 3 2 were used to develop the water balance model shown in Figure 3 4 The assumptions made during the development of the proposed mod el are stated below. T he net recharge to the aquifer leaves the aquifer as spring and stream discharge with no change in storage (Bush & Johnston 1988). Therefore, in equilibrium conditions, infiltration to the aquifer will equal discharge from the aquifer P recipitation incident on a given land area leaves via evaporation, surface runoff, or infiltration.

PAGE 28

28 The water inflows to the aquifer from the neighboring aquifers or other water resources have not been considered. Figure 3 4 Simplified depiction of the water flows related to withdrawals and precipitation included in the model Variables The total volume of water evaporated or entering and leaving the ground and surface water resources is determined by various factors. The type of land use is an impor tant factor that plays a key role in defin ing other variable values. Any alteration in land use alters the volume of water evaporated from the land surface (E), infiltrated into the aquifer (R aq ) and runoff to surface water resource (D n ) As impervious cov erage increases, the volume of surface runoff increases, and there is a corresponding decr ease in ground water recharge. Figure 3 4 shows the variation in evaporation, infiltration and runoff percentages for pristine and various urban densities and degrees of imperviousness.

PAGE 29

29 Figure 3 5 Average values for infiltration, runoff, and evapo transpiration for four land use types (USEPA 1993) The type of land use also determines the net amount of wat er withdrawn from the resource, i.e., water volume withdrawn less recharge from use. For example, 21% of water withdrawn for irrigation directly infiltrates into the aquifer whereas in the case of other activities and uses the percentages may differ depending on the treated waste water use and disposal system. Net Recharge (R aq ) to the aquifer is recharge from precipitation (R p ) plus recharge from use and direct well injection (R u ) minus withdrawal from the aquifer (W a q ) Here, a basic assumption is that the net recharge to the aquifer leaves the aquifer as spring and stream discharge (D aq ) with no change in storage (Bush & Joh nston 1988). Net recharge to surface water (D n ) from the land surface is comprised of runoff from precipitation (D p ) plus runoff from use and treated waste water disposal (D u ) minus withdrawa l from surface water (W s ) D s and D aq aggregate to form

PAGE 30

30 total flow (Dw) of the surface water resource which is total amount of water discharge from that particular watershed. Impact Indicator s The values of variables discussed above were calculated and put in their respective places in a format as shown in Table 3 1. The variables are calculated both for developed and hypothetical pristine conditions. Table 3 1. Variables used in the model Conditions W aq R p R u R aq R aq (dev.)/ R aq (Pris.) W s D p D u D w D w (de v.)/ D w (Pris.) Developed Pristine The approach to estimating impact is to compare the aquifer recharge and surface water discharge values in the pristine state to the current developed state obtained using the proposed model. The r atio obtained by comparing the two states represents the relative impact. The impact indicator was expressed in a ratio as follows. Impact on aquifer = Impact on surface water = The value of the impact indicator can be any negative or positive number with 1 being no impact, e.g., the developed condition will have a net discharge from the aquifer and a total discharge from the watershed that is the same as the pristine state. When impact values exceed 1, the built environment is recharging more than in the pristine state. A value between 0 and 1 depicts a decrease in recharge as compared to an

PAGE 31

31 undeveloped state. A negative value shows that aquifer and surface water are getting deple ted. Thus, t his allows one to understand how much a built environment has impacted the water resource. If the model is used for planning purposes, it can give an

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 4 MODEL APPLICATION AND ANALYSIS The model has been applied to the water use in the following cases (1) Hydrological Unit level: Built environment in Florida (2) r egional level: University of Florida campus and (3) b uilding level: Rinker Hall Assessing the Impact I ndicator V alue for the B uilt environment in Florida The model was applied to water use in the built environment in Florida, but impact indicators for other land use types and regions could be developed similarly with appropriate data. Model Data Extraction The sta te of Florida is divided into eight hydrologic unit sub regions (Figure 4 1 ). The impact of the built environment on ground water and surface water resources were calculated at Hydrological Unit (HU) scale a s tandard US Geological Survey sub watershed designation It includes the drainage area of a river system and its tributaries, a closed basin or the coastal drainage area of a group of streams (USGS 2011 ). In order to examine the altered recharge due to chan ged land cover, the area for built environment land cover was determined for the eight hydrologic unit sub regions using a Geographical Information System (GIS). Built environment land use types were grouped into four categories, namely transportation, com munication and utilities; urban and built up (low density); urban and built up (medium density); and urban and built up (high density). The area fractions in each hydrologic unit sub region by land use classification were obtained using GIS.

PAGE 33

33 F igure 4 1. Map of the hydrologic unit sub regions in Florida The model uses county level data for variables. The GIS shape files for HU sub regions and counties obtained from Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL 2004 ) were intersected to calculate the p ortions of each county in its respective HU. For the prototype, t en years of annual rainfall data for various meteorological stations in Florida were obtained from the Florida Climate Center ( FCC, FSU 2000 ) The average annual rainfall for different hydro logic unit sub regions was calculated from the average of the meteorological stations in the sub region. Evaporation, runoff, shallow infiltration, and deep infiltration for each of the four land use types were estimated based on percentages from the Envir onmental Protection Agency (USEPA 1993)

PAGE 34

34 (Figure 3 4). Aquifer recharge from precipitation, Rp and surface water recharge from precipitation, Dp were calculated as follows: R p = Deep infiltration + 0.5 x Shallow infiltration D p = Runoff + 0.5 x Shallow in filtration Figure 4 2 Map showing intersection of hydrologic unit s and counties Pristine land cover was calculated by summing up the areas of the four built up land uses. The values of these variables for the pristine state were calculate d by applying the percentages from EPA (USEPA 1993) and the above mentioned formula.

PAGE 35

35 Table 4 1. R echarge, precipitation (R p ) and Discharge, precipitation (D p ) values for HU 0308, St. Johns Conditions Waq Rp Ru Raq Raq (dev .) / Raq ( Pris.) Ws Dp Du Dn Dw Dw (dev. ) / Dw ( Pris.) Developed 454,778 1,027,423 P ristine 838,261 502,957 Estimating the impact of the built environment on water requires withdrawal data. Fresh water withdrawal data from the US Geological Su rvey for the year 2000 were used (Marella 2004). Withdrawal variable (Waq) includes public supplied and self supplied water withdrawal volumes for domestic, commercial, industrial, and power generation purpose. The withdrawals in the pristine state have be en considered zero, hence Waq = Ws = 0 in pristine state. Table 4 2 W ithdrawal, aquifer (W aq ) and withdrawal, surface water (W s ) values for HU 0308, St. Johns Conditions Waq Rp Ru Raq Raq ratio (dev./ Pris.) Ws Dp Du Dn Dw Dw ratio (dev./ Pris.) Developed 172,471 454,778 69,988 1,027,423 Pristine 0 838,261 0 502,957 Each of these withdrawal types was analyzed and by following the flow and disposition of the water, an estimated average consumptive and non consumptive fraction were determined. For example, a ssuming 30% of the domestic water extracted is used for landscape irrigation approximately 38% evapotranspires contributing to consumptive use. The remaining portion of irrigated water either moves down to the aqui fer and forms a part of urban recharge to aquifer (R u ) or flows to surface water and forms a part of urban discharge (D u ) The withdrawal data we re available on the county level, which were aggregated to the HU sub regions using GIS as described earlier.

PAGE 36

36 A portion of the water that is abstracted in the built environment is returned to a wastewater treatment facility. The amount of waste water treated in various counties was obtained from US Geological Survey data for counties ( Marella 2004 ). The water man agement districts of Florida discharge treated waste water to the aquifers through deep well injection, dispose treated waste water to streams or use treated waste water for public land and golf course irrigation and other purposes. Average estimated cons umptive and non consumptive fractions were calculated by analyzing the USGS waste water use data. As in the case of withdrawals, waste water treated, reuse, recharge and discharge data obtained at county level were allocated to sub r egions of hydrologic un its using GIS. Table 4 3 R echarge, urban (R u ) and discharge, urban (D u ) values for HU 0308, St. Johns Conditions Waq Rp Ru Raq Raq ratio (dev./ Pris.) Ws Dp Du Dn Dw Dw ratio (dev./ Pris.) Developed 172,471 454,778 90,299 69,98 8 1,027,423 128,172 Pristine 0 838,261 0 0 502,957 0 Evaporation, E from the land surface consists of evaporation from precipitation and the consumptive water loss from use. Net recharge to the aquifer (R aq ) and net discharge to surface water (D n ) and total discharge to surface water ( D w ) were calculated as explained in the model. The impact indicator values for aquifer and surface water were then calculated using R aq and D w in developed and pristine conditions. R aq = R p + R u W aq D n = D p + D u W s D w = R aq + D n Since, in pristine conditions, W aq = 0 W s = 0 and hence R u = 0, D u = 0.

PAGE 37

37 Table 4 4 N et Recharge (R aq ), net discharge (D n ) and total discharge to surface water (D w ) for HU 0308, St. Johns Conditions Waq Rp Ru Raq R aq ratio (dev./ Pris.) Ws Dp Du Dn Dw Dw ratio (dev./ Pris.) Developed 172,471 454,778 90,299 373,606 0.44 69,988 1,027,423 128,172 1,085,607 1,458,213 1.09 Pristine 838,261 0 838,261 0 502,957 0 502,957 1,341,218 Results and Analysis The impact in dicator results for the aquifer from the prototypical water resource model for all hydrologic units in Florida are shown in Figure 4 3. The ratios indicate that the aquifer under hydrological unit 0309 is most affected. The ratios range from 0.30 to 0.58 w hich indicate that net recharge to aquifer is 30% to 58% of the recharge amount in pristine conditions. The surface water impact indicator ratio obtained for each hydrological unit is greater than 1 which is attributed to a n increase in runoff to surf ace w ater in the developed conditions. The impact indicator ratios for surface water resources are shown in Figure 4 4. The impact indicator values for surface water in these hydrological units are closer to 1 compared to the values for aquifer. This shows tha t in terms of water volume, aquifers under these hydrological units are more affected than the surface water. However, one must consider that in all cases, the water flow paths have been altered: aquifer discharge (D aq ) to surface water is reduced and disc harge from urban areas (D n ) is increased. In addition, the timing of water flows has been changed.

PAGE 38

38 Figure 4 3 Impact indicator results for the aquifer from the prototypical water resource model for hydrologic units in Florida The aquifer i mpact indicator ratios for hydrological units of Southern Florida (0309) and Peace Tampa Bay (0310) are nearly the same; however the built area to watershed area ratio for Southern Florida (0309) is much less than Peace Tampa Bay (0310) Suwannee (0311), S t. Johns (0308) and Peace Tampa Bay (0310) have same value for surface water impact indicators although they have different built area ratios. The difference can be attributed to both the density and withdrawal patterns. The results generally agree with re cognized regions of greater and lesser water stress in Florida

PAGE 39

39 Figure 4 4 Impact indicator results for surface water from the prototypical water resource model for hydrologic units in Florida Table 4 5 Aquifer and surface water indicator values for all HUs in Florida HU Code Hydrological Unit Raq (Developed)/ Raq (Pristine) Ds (Developed)/ Ds (Pristine) 0 314 Choctawhatchee Escambia 0.39 1.08 0 313 Apalachicola 0.58 1.06 0 312 Ochlockonee 0.49 1.05 0 311 Suwanee 0.40 1.09 0 310 Peace T ampa Bay 0.33 1.09 0 309 Southern Florida 0.30 1.02 0 308 St. Johns 0.44 1.09 0 307 Altamaha St Mary's 0.50 1.10

PAGE 40

40 Assessing the Impact Indicator V alues for the University of Florida Campus Model Data Extraction The extent of University of Florida (UF) cam pus considered for impact assessment is shown in Figure 4 5. The urban land use types of the UF campus are grouped into seven categories, namely buildings, roads, parking, pavement, greens, conservation areas and water ( Figure 4 6 ) The area fractions for each land use classification were obtained using GIS. The impact indicators were calculated using annual rainfall and water supply data for the UF campus for 2010. Figure 4 5 Extent of UF Campus considered in the case study Variables include m etered water supplied to UF campus by Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU), waste water treatment volumes and their disposition, areas of land use types and annual precipitation. Average estimated consumptive and non consumptive

PAGE 41

41 fractions were calculated by analyzing the water flow and disposition in the treatment regime. Figure 4 6 Various land uses within built environment of UF campus Evaporation, runoff, shallow infiltration, and deep infiltration for each of the four land use types w ere estimated based on average values from the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 1993) (Figure 4 2) and were used to calculate R p and D p Monthly metered water data from the UF Physical Plant Division for the year 2010 were used to estimate potable wa ter entering the campus All potable water is used as domestic water. A portion of the water that is pumped is returned to wastewater treatment plants located on the campus. This treated or reclaimed waste water is used Legend

PAGE 42

42 for irrigation deep well injection, and as makeup water for cooling systems in cogeneration and chiller plant s The makeup water supplied to chillers and the cogeneration plant contributes towards the evaporative losses. The precipitation run off from buildings, roads, pavements and other l and surfaces drains down to Lake Alice. Results and Analysis Table 4 6 Aquifer and surface water variables and indicator values for UF campus Conditions Waq Rp Ru Raq Raq ratio (dev./pris.) Ws Dp Du Dn Dw Dw (D)/ Dw (P) Developed 1,005 394.95 418.70 19 1.41 0.30 0 452.33 95.42 547.74 356.34 0.34 Pristine 0 646.12 0 646.12 0 387.67 0 387.67 1033.80 The aquifer impact indicator ratio obtained for UF campus is 0.30 which in simple terms means that the amount of water withdrawn within UF campus area is more than the natural and induced recharge within the campus area. Thus the water withdrawals are greater than the recharge within the UF campus and therefore there is a conceptual net deplet ion of the aquifer. The surface water impact indicator ratio obt ained for the UF campus is 0.34 which is attributed to a decrease in total discharge to surface wat er in the developed conditions due to increased evaporative losses. The rat ios indicate that groundwater resources are much more affected than surface water resources.

PAGE 43

43 Assessing the Impact I ndicator V alue for Rinker Hall Model Data Extraction The extent of the site considered for impact assessment for Rinker Hall is shown in Figure 4 6 The urban land use types we re grouped into f ive categories, namely buildi ngs (Rinker Hall and Perry Yard) road s parking, pavement and greens as shown in Figure 4 7 The impact indicators were calculated using annual rainfall and water supply data for Rinker Hall for the year 2010. Figure 4 7 Extent of Rinker Hall site The main features of the site are: Rinker Hall is a gold LEED rated building, has a rainwater harvesting system, and uses high performance water systems ; t he Perry yard has a green roof with a separate rain harvesting system for irrigation.

PAGE 44

44 Figu re 4 8 Various land uses within the Rinker Hall building site Rinker Hall has a rainwater harvesting system with an 8,000 gallon storage capacity which reduce s potable water use for toilet flushing. The annual yield of the rainwater harvesting was calcul ated from monthly rainfall data, storage capacity, and usage assumptions from other similar buildings on campus. The overflow in excess of cistern storage and usage amount was assumed to flow to the UF stormwater system. The Perry yard green roof rainwater media and piped to two 1,550 gallon cisterns located adjacent to the building. Water from the cisterns is delivered back to the roof and applied to the planted roof through a drip irrigation system. The irrigatio hour rate for 8 minutes (Personal communication, March 28, 2011). On average, 44% of

PAGE 45

45 rainfall is detained by the green roof. The 56% of the water runoff is prevented from entering directly to t he UF stormwater system by the cistern water storage and irrigation system. The overflow in excess of green roof irrigation and cistern storage goes to the UF stormwater system. In the dry seasons, when there is not enough water stored in the cisterns, UF reclaimed water serves as a backup irrigation water supply. This amount was calculated for year 2010 from monthly rainfall, irrigation data and cistern storage capacity. Water flowing to the cistern = Runoff collected Irrigation Water stored in the cist ern = Actual value of flowing water to cistern (if value < 3 Kgal) = 3 Kgal (if value > 3 Kgal) The withdrawal data consists of domestic water supply for Rinker Hall, Rinker the cooling plant. Th e electricity consumed in the building has been multiplied by a factor of 0.14 gallons/kWh to calculate the evaporative loss for producing electricity to be used in Rinker Hall. Since the amount of waste water generated from Rinker Hall is less than the w ater required to irrigat e the site and the P erry yard green roof the irrigation water minus the waste water generated in the building has been considered under withdrawals. Results and Analysis The aquifer impact indicator ratio obtained for Rinker Hall s ite is 3.22 while t he surface water impact indicator ratio is 0.69. The rat ios indicate that groundwater resources are more affected than surface water resources.

PAGE 46

46 Table 4 7 Aquifer and surface water variables and indicator values for Rinker Hall Comparing the I mpact I ndicators obtained for St. Johns HU, UF campus and Rink er Hall Table 4 8 Aquifer and surface water variables and indicator values for St. Johns HU, UF Campus and Rinker Hall Conditions Waq Rp Ru Raq Raq(D) /Raq(P) Ws Dp Du Dn Dw Dw (D)/ Dw (P) 0308 St. John s HU Developed 172,471 454,778 90,299 373,606 0. 44 69,988 1,027,423 128,172 1,085,607 1,458,213 1.09 Pristine 0 838,261 0 838,261 0 502,957 0 502,957 1,341,218 UF Campus Developed 1,005 394.95 418.70 191.41 0.30 0 452.33 95.42 547.74 356.34 0.34 Pristine 0 646.12 0 646.12 0 387.67 0 387.67 1033 .80 Rinker Hall Site Developed 4.30 0.37 1.27 2.66 3.22 0 1.01 1.18 3.57 0.91 0 0.69 Pristine 0 0.83 0 0.83 0 0.50 0 0.50 1.32 Comparing the impact indicator ratios obtained for the UF campus and Rinker Hall scales, one can see that Rinker Hall imp acts ground water resources more than the UF campus. In the case of surface water, the UF campus depletes surface water resources more than Rinker Hall. Although Rinker Hall is a part of the UF campus which is located in the St. Johns Hydrological Unit, th e ratios obtained in the three cases are very different. This is due to the different net recharge areas within a watershed. At these scales, t here may be many areas within the St. Johns HU with similar impact indicator values On average, however, the val ues aggregate to give a value of 0.44 and 1.09 for aquifer impact and Conditi ons Waq Rp Ru Raq Raq (Dev./ Pris.) Ws Dp Du Dn Dw Dw (Dev./ Pris.) Developed 3.92 0.37 1.24 2.31 2.79 2.19 1.38 3.57 1.27 0.96 Pristine 0.83 0.83 0.50 0.50 1.32

PAGE 47

47 surface water respectively. A reas of low impact compensate for areas of high impact within a watershed. The variation in net recharge and discharge areas can be attributed to the variab ility in densities and withdrawal and consumption patterns.

PAGE 48

48 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) impact indicator model for water resources developed during this research will help urban designers, planners architects and constructors in decision making for sustainable planning and urban development. In particular, the water resource impact indicator values calculated for a site or city development from the model will give a probable measure of the relative effects on resource recharge as compared to its undeveloped conditions. The recharge ratios of the developed to the pristine state generated out of the model serve as midpoint characterization factors for LCA in terms of impact on water resources. This r esearch addresses the quantitative impacts of urban development on fresh water resources which have not been addressed in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). Thus the model contributes to the improvement of the assessment of water resources in LCA. From t he application of the model in the three case studies, it is apparent that the model is fit to be applied at any scale which overcomes the limitation of the some of the past research. The characterization factors developed using variables such as land use type precipitation volume withdrawal s waste water generation and disposal can be used to calculate water resource impacts of the life cycle of a building. The model is developed from simple hydrological principles and can be applied to a built environme nt LCA during design stage or after construction to obtain potential measure of impacts on water resources. This can help in choosing the design and development alternatives. For example, different pavement materials can be compared to choose the most

PAGE 49

49 perv ious alternative which maximizes recharge. On a larger scale, it can be used to allocate zones of allowable high, medium and low withdrawals based on land densities and the impact water resources can sustain. The impact indicator ratios for ground water re source assessment obtained in three case studies range from 3.22 (Rinker Hall) to 0.58 (HUC 0313 ). This depicts that a built environment can cause a reduction in net recharge to an aquifer but it can also deplete the aquifer relative to undeveloped condit ions A partial solution to the impact created by land development is to leave natural land cover to compensate for the recharge volumes. For example, the Lake Alice conservation area helps in aquifer recharge on the UF campus. The surface water impact ind icator ratios vary from 0.69 (Rinker Hall) to 1.09 (HUC 0308, 0310, 0311). This indicates that an urban development can decrease discharge to surface water as well as increase surface discharge due to an increased impervious cover which increases runoff From the case studies, it can be inferred that using the model during planning stage of an individual site or regional development can help assess the impact on water resources. It will help in evaluating and adopting strategies which will minimize as well as evenly distribute the impact on the associated water resources. Recommendations for Future S tudies One of t he next step s in this research is to examine the scale of the analy sis in order to determine the effects of changing scales. Secondly, t he data u sed in the three case studies are based on annual averages. However, monthly data can give varied results. For example, high withdrawals in low precipitation months can provide high impact values. Low withdrawals during high precipitation months may or may not

PAGE 50

50 compensate for the former impact. Thus temporal analysis will help in identifying the various impact levels for different time periods and can help to set a limit factor for impact on water resource. Evaporation from surface water bodies such as strea ms, stormwater management structures contributes to consumptive losses. Therefore in order to increase the accuracy of the model further, evaporation could be considered as in the case of land surfaces. The water pathway developed as part of the research d oes not differentiate buildings based on their activities. If building activities are also included in the variables, then there can be further analysis as to what percentage of urban land cover combined with activities impacts water resources the most. Al so, if the soil properties such as absorption, infiltration can if considered can help in increasing accuracy of the model. Overall, the model presents a comprehensive method to access the quantitative impact of built environment on water resources, an are a of impact which has not been addressed in LCA so far. Integration of this model into Life Cycle Assessment of buildings will provide improved results in terms of water resource analysis.

PAGE 51

51 ( APPENDIX A ) CALCULATING VARIABLE S FOR BUILT ENVIRONMENT IN FLORIDA Table A 1. Calculating Recharge, precipitation ( Rp); Discharge, precipitation (Dp) and Evaporation from precipitation for HUs Florida 0 307 Average Precipitation 52.94 inches/year Land use type Case Type Area Evapotranspiration Runoff Shallow Infiltration Deep infiltration SF Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Transportation, communication & utilities 4 1,004,188,680 9,942 18,227 3,314 1,657 Urban & built up (low) 2 6,658,276,680 83,499 43,947 46,144 46,144 Urban & built up (med) 3 4,046,070,600 46,734 40,058 26,705 20,029 Urban & built up (high) 4 4,553,631,720 45,083 82,652 15,028 7,514 Pristine (in place of built up) 1 16,262,167,680 214,670 53, 668 134,169 134,169 Developed Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 120,939 Pristine Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 201,253 Developed Discharge, Precipitation (Ru ) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 230,479 Pristine Discharge, Precipitation (Ru) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 120,752 0 308 St. Johns Average Precipitation 50.14 inches/year Land use type Case Type Area Evapotranspiration Runoff Shallow Infiltration Deep infiltration SF Mg al/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Transportation, communication & utilities 4 11,309,787,720 106,050 194,424 35,350 17,675 Urban & built up (low) 2 21,013,431,120 249,58 3 131,359 137,927 137,927 Urban & built up (med) 3 19,202,729,040 210,070 180,06 0 120,040 90,030 Urban & built up (high) 4 19,991,905,560 187,460 343,677 62,487 31,243 Pristine (in place of built up) 1 71,517,853,440 89 4,146 223,536 558,841 558,841 Developed Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltrat ion = 454,778 Pristine Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 838,261 Developed Discharge, Precipitation (Ru) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 1,027,423 Pristine Discharge, Precipitation (Ru) = 0.5 x shall ow infiltration + runoff = 502,957

PAGE 52

52 Table A 1. Continued O309 Southern Florida Average Precipitation 54.6 inches/year Land use type Case Type Area Evapotranspiration Runoff Shallow Infiltration Deep infiltration SF Mgal/year Mgal/year Mg al/year Mgal/year Transportation, communication & utilities 4 10,231,372,800 104,471 191,531 34,824 17,412 Urban & built up (low) 2 21,043,836,000 272,176 143,251 150,413 150,413 Urban & built up (med) 3 24,324,862,320 289,775 248,378 165,586 124,190 U rban & built up (high) 4 15,251,270,760 155,729 285,503 51,910 25,955 Pristine (in place of built up) 1 70,851,341,880 964,606 241,152 602,879 602,879 Developed Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 519,335 Pris tine Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 904,318 Developed Discharge, Precipitation (Ru) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 1,070,029 Pristine Discharge, Precipitation (Ru) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + r unoff = 542,591.05 O310 Peace Tampa Bay Average Precipitation 51.03 inches/year Land use type Case Type Area Evapotranspiration Runoff Shallow Infiltration Deep infiltration SF Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Transportation, comm unication & utilities 4 9,805,486,680 93,576 171,556 31,192 15,596 Urban & built up (low) 2 22,532,716,800 272,378 143,357 150,525 150,525 Urban & built up (med) 3 13,010,762,160 144,859 124,165 82,777 62,083 Urban & built up (high) 4 84,592,735,920 807 ,2 90 1,480,031 269,097 134,548 Pristine (in place of built up) 1 129,941,701,560 1,653,421 413,355 1,033,388 1,033,388 Developed Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 629,546 Pristine Recharge, Precipitation (Rp ) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 1,550,082 Developed Discharge, Precipitation (Ru) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 2,185,904 Pristine Discharge, Precipitation (Ru) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 930,049

PAGE 53

53 Table A 1. Continued 0 311 Suwanee Average Precipitation 53.99 inches/year Land use type Case Type Area Evapotranspiration Runoff Shallow Infiltration Deep infiltration SF Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Transportation, communication & utilit ies 4 4,860,991,080 49,081 89,980.88 16,360.16 8,180.08 Urban & built up (low) 2 8,552,134,800 109,376 57,566.16 60,444.47 60,444.47 Urban & built up (med) 3 1,708,510,320 20,126 17,250.50 11,500.33 8,625.25 Urban & built up (high) 4 7,292,858,760 73,63 5 134,996.72 24,544.86 12,272.43 Pristine (in place of built up) 1 22,414,494,960 301,753.04 75,438.26 188,595.65 188,595.65 Developed Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 145,947.13 Pristine Recharge, Precipit ation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 282,893.48 Developed Discharge, Precipitation (Ru) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 356,219.15 Pristine Discharge, Precipitation (Ru) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 169,736.09 0 312 Ochlockonee Average Precipitation 60.66 inches/year Land use type Case Type Area Evapotranspiration Runoff Shallow Infiltration Deep infiltration SF Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Transportation, communication & util ities 4 840,577,320 9,53 6 17,482 3,179 1,589 Urban & built up (low) 2 2,893,821,480 41,582 21,885 22,980 22,980 Urban & built up (med) 3 1,688,342,040 22,345 19,153 12,769 9,576 Urban & built up (high) 4 1,895,252,040 21,500 39,417 7,166.69 3,583 Prist ine (in place of built up) 1 7,317,992,880 110,689 27,672 69,181 69,181 Developed Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 60,775 Pristine Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltratio n = 103,771 Developed Discharge, Precipitation (Ru) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 120,984 Pristine Discharge, Precipitation (Ru) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 62,263

PAGE 54

54 Table A 1. Continued 0 313 Apalachicola Average Precipitati on 56.51 inches/year Land use type Case Type Area Evapotranspiration Runoff Shallow Infiltration Deep infiltration SF Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Transportation, communication & utilities 4 564,406,920 5,964.70 10,935.27 1,988.23 994. 12 Urban & built up (low) 2 1,740,483,360 23,298.51 12,262.37 12,875.49 12,875.49 Urban & built up (med) 3 446,010,840 5,499.06 4,713.48 3,142.32 2,356.74 Urban & built up (high) 4 710,202,240 7,505.47 13,760.03 2,501.82 1,250.91 Pristine (in place of built up) 1 3,461,103,360 48,769.61 12,192.40 30,481.00 30,481.00 Developed Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 27,731.19 Pristine Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 45,721.51 Developed Discharge, Precipitation (Ru) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 51,925.09 Pristine Discharge, Precipitation (Ru) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 27,432.90 0 314 Choctawhatchee Escambia Average Precipitatio n 64.66 inches/year Land use type Case Type Area Evapotranspiration Runoff Shallow Infiltration Deep infiltration SF Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Transportation, communication & utilities 4 2,492,938,800 30,145.18 55,266.17 10,048.39 5 ,024.20 Urban & built up (low) 2 4,785,109,560 73,292.67 38,575.09 40,503.85 40,503.85 Urban & built up (med) 3 3,986,088,480 56,234.14 48,200.69 32,133.79 24,100.35 Urban & built up (high) 4 7,926,351,840 95,847.26 175,719.97 31,949.09 15,974.54 Prist ine (in place of built up) 1 19,190,488,680 309,407.69 77,351.92 193,379.81 193,379.81 Developed Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 142,920.49 Pristine Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 290,069.71 Developed Discharge, Precipitation (Ru) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 375,079.48 Pristine Discharge, Precipitation (Ru) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 174,041.83 Case Type Evapotranspiration Runof f Shallow Infiltration Deep infiltration 1 40% 10% 25% 25% 2 38% 20% 21% 21% 3 35% 30% 20% 15% 4 30% 55% 10% 5%

PAGE 55

55 Table A 2. Accounting for all fresh water input to the built environment in HUs Florida Public supply Self Supplied Import Export Domestic Commercial/ Industrial Power generation Total water extracted Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Alachua 28.26 0 0 0 0 4.12 0 2.5 0 2.63 0 37.51 0.00 Baker 0.88 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 0.43 0 0 0 3.21 0.00 Bay 6.28 44.89 0 0 0 2.01 0 0.3 0 0.89 0 9.48 44.89 Bradford 1.38 0 0 0 0 1.89 0 1.25 0 0 0 4.52 0.00 Brevard 13.66 14.08 25.61 0 0 1.9 0 1.04 0.01 0.39 0 16.99 14.09 Broward 258.06 0 0 0 0 2.11 0 0.54 0 0 0 260.71 0.00 Ca lhoun 0.75 0 0 0 0 0.93 0 0 0 0 0 1.68 0.00 Charlotte 3.29 3.99 7.72 0 0 3.55 0 0.15 2.34 0 0 6.99 6.33 Citrus 13.97 0 0 0 0 7.2 0 0.8 0.29 1.55 0 23.52 0.29 Clay 14.77 0 0 0 0 4.24 0 6.87 0 0 0 25.88 0.00 Collier 47.17 5.23 0 0 0 2.67 0 0.19 5.62 0 0 50.03 10.85 Columbia 3.67 0 0 0 0 3.74 0 0.34 0 0 0 7.75 0.00 Desoto 4.49 6.1 0 3.66 4.97 2.16 0 0.06 1.33 0 0 10.37 12.40 Dixie 0.67 0 0 0 0 0.98 0 0.26 0 0 0 1.91 0.00 Duval 119.12 0 0 0 0 4.46 0 12.51 0 8.33 0 144.42 0.00 Escambia 44.63 0 0 1.07 0. 00 1.6 0 35.77 24.65 2.42 199.89 85.49 224.54 Flagler 6.22 0 0 0 0 0.62 0 0.2 0.07 0 0 7.04 0.07 Franklin 1.92 0 0 0 0 0.19 0 0 0 0 0 2.11 0.00 Gadsden 3.06 1.28 0 0 0 1.85 0 0.92 0 0 0 5.83 1.28 Gilchrist 0.27 0 0 0 0 1.33 0 0.26 0 0 0 1.86 0.00 Glad es 0.55 0 0 0 0 0.61 0 0.14 3.93 0 0 1.30 3.93 Gulf 1.47 0 0 0 0 0.32 0 0.9 1.65 0 0 2.69 1.65 Hamilton 0.95 0 0 0 0 0.74 0 34.39 0 0 0 36.08 0.00 Hardee 1.78 0 0 0 0 0.64 0 5.93 0 0.81 0 9.16 0.00 Hendry 0.95 3.77 0 0 0 1.67 0 0.72 0 0 0 3.34 3.77 He rnando 20.26 0.01 0 0 0 1.41 0 19.7 0.07 0 0 41.37 0.08 Highlands 9.14 0 0 0 0 1.68 0 0.55 0.03 0.08 0 11.45 0.03 Hillsborough 85.51 80.88 0.02 5.81 5.49 4.71 0 14.17 5.5 0 0 110.20 91.87 Holmes 1.38 0 0 0 0 1.35 0 0 0 0 0 2.73 0.00 Indian River 13.93 0 0 0 0 1.87 0 0.12 0 0 0 15.92 0.00 Jackson 2.46 0 0 0 0 3.22 0 1.5 0 0.3 89.53 7.48 89.53 Jefferson 0.72 0 0 0 0 0.84 0 0.2 0 0 0 1.76 0.00 Lafayette 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.61 0 0.2 0 0 0 1.01 0.00 Lake 39.92 0 0 0 0 4.27 0 10.44 0.6 0 0 54.63 0.60 Lee 49.09 3.28 0 0 0 8.86 0 8.76 7.19 0.22 0 66.93 10.47 Leon 35.7 0 0 0 0 4.29 0 0.12 0 2.74 0 42.85 0.00

PAGE 56

56 Table A 2. Continued Public Supply Import Export Domestic Commercial/ Industrial Power generation Total water extracted Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface Levy 2.16 0 0 0 0 3.95 0 0.06 1.96 0 0 6.17 1.96 Liberty 0.39 0 0 0 0 0.45 0 0.82 0 0 0 1.66 0.00 Madison 1.65 0 0 0 0 1.23 0 0.15 0 0 0 3.03 0.00 Manatee 13.87 36.05 0 2.70 7. 01 0.17 0 0.47 0.53 0 25.1 17.21 68.69 Marion 27.99 0 0 0 0 16.42 0 2.08 0 0 0 46.49 0.00 Martin 18.45 0 0 0 0 4.2 0 1.2 1.95 0.54 24.63 24.39 26.58 Miami D ade 349.29 0 0 17.02 0.00 4.83 0 41.65 0 2.08 0 414.87 0.00 Monroe 0 0 17.02 0 0 0.08 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.18 0.00 Nassau 6.81 0 0 0 0 3.48 0 32.46 0 0 0 42.75 0.00 Okaloosa 22.97 0 0 0 0 1.27 0 4.14 0 0 0 28.38 0.00 Okeechobee 0.54 1.69 0 0 0 1.52 0 0.36 0 0 0 2.42 1.69 Orange 211.76 0 0 25.61 0.00 8.82 0 24.21 0 0.76 0 271.16 0.00 Osceola 30 0 0 0 0 4.61 0 0.84 0 0.03 0 35.48 0.00 Palm Beach 194.57 35.27 0 0 0 10.12 0 5.76 13.21 0 0 210.45 48.48 Pasco 102.67 0 0 67.44 0.00 4.5 0 4.72 0.81 0.14 0 179.47 0.81 Pinellas 39.88 0 78.74 0 0 0.41 0 0.09 0.55 0 0 40.38 0.55 Polk 75.43 0.06 0 0 0 12.45 0 71 .2 6.39 4.27 15.66 163.35 22.11 Putnam 3.2 0 0 0 0 4.99 0 19.14 31.12 0.69 13.9 28.02 45.02 St Johns 16.49 0 0 0 0 1.91 0 0.01 0 0 0 18.41 0.00 St Lucie 17.95 0 0 0 0 7.39 0 6.35 2.53 0 0 31.69 2.53 Santa Rosa 13.47 0 1.07 0 0 0.81 0 5.57 0 0 0 19.85 0 .00 Sarasota 27.86 0.85 10.62 0 0 0.43 0 0.31 0.33 0 0 28.60 1.18 Seminole 66.9 0 0 0 0 2.73 0 0.08 0 0 0 69.71 0.00 Sumter 4.44 0 0 0 0 4.57 0 0.36 16.98 0 0 9.37 16.98 Suwannee 1.4 0 0 0 0 2.7 0 1.54 0 0.06 101.01 5.70 101.01 Taylor 1.73 0 0 0 0 0.9 5 0 42.15 2.96 0 0 44.83 2.96 Union 0.36 0 0 0 0 1.1 0 0.4 0 0 0 1.86 0.00 Volusia 54.9 0 0 0 0 3.02 0 0.49 0 0.54 130.63 58.95 130.63 Wakulla 2.19 0 0 0 0 1.44 0 0.62 0 0.06 28.38 4.31 28.38 Walton 7.35 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0.92 0 0 0 8.44 0.00 Washington 1.16 0 0 0 0 1.42 0 0.22 0 0 0 2.80 0.00

PAGE 57

57 Table A 3 Aquifer and surface water recharge from irrigation for all counties in Florida County Domestic (residential) Water use for irrigation Evaporation Runoff Shallow infiltration Deep infiltration Recharge t o aquifer Recharge to surface water 30% of domestic water Alachua 19.30 5.79 2.20 1.16 1.22 1.22 1.82 1.77 Baker 2.27 0.68 0.26 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.21 0.21 Bay 15.74 4.72 1.79 0.94 0.99 0.99 1.49 1.44 Bradford 2.65 0.80 0.30 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.25 0 .24 Brevard 33.72 10.12 3.84 2.02 2.12 2.12 3.19 3.09 Broward 170.04 51.01 19.38 10.20 10.71 10.71 16.07 15.56 Calhoun 1.36 0.41 0.16 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.12 Charlotte 12.14 3.64 1.38 0.73 0.76 0.76 1.15 1.11 Citrus 16.82 5.05 1.92 1.01 1.06 1.06 1.5 9 1.54 Clay 14.10 4.23 1.61 0.85 0.89 0.89 1.33 1.29 Collier 33.00 9.90 3.76 1.98 2.08 2.08 3.12 3.02 Columbia 5.48 1.64 0.62 0.33 0.35 0.35 0.52 0.50 Desoto 3.31 0.99 0.38 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.31 0.30 Dixie 1.38 0.41 0.16 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.13 Duval 74.34 22.30 8.47 4.46 4.68 4.68 7.03 6.80 Escambia 29.73 8.92 3.39 1.78 1.87 1.87 2.81 2.72 Flagler 4.87 1.46 0.56 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.46 0.45 Franklin 1.59 0.48 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 Gadsden 4.63 1.39 0.53 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.44 0.42 Gilchrist 1.44 0.43 0.16 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.13 Glades 0.94 0.28 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.09 Gulf 1.37 0.41 0.16 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.13 Hamilton 1.29 0.39 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.12 Hardee 1.83 0.55 0.21 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.17 Hendry 3.73 1.12 0.43 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.35 0.34 Hernando 16.67 5.00 1.90 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.58 1.53 Highlands 6.72 2.02 0.77 0.40 0.42 0.42 0.64 0.61 Hillsborough 94.35 28.31 10.76 5.66 5.94 5.94 8.92 8.63 Holmes 2.15 0.65 0.25 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.20 0.20 Indian River 8.79 2.64 1.00 0.53 0.55 0.55 0.83 0.80 Jackson 4.32 1.30 0.49 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.41 0.40 Jefferson 1.27 0.38 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.12 Lafayette 0.70 0.21 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.06

PAGE 58

58 Table A 3 Continued County Domestic (residential) Water use for irrigation E vaporation Runoff Shallow infiltration Deep infiltration Recharge to aquifer Recharge to surface water 30% of domestic water Lake 33.63 10.09 3.83 2.02 2.12 2.12 3.18 3.08 Lee 34.90 10.47 3.98 2.09 2.20 2.20 3.30 3.19 Leon 24.63 7.39 2.81 1.48 1.55 1.55 2.33 2.25 Levy 5.30 1.59 0.60 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.50 0.48 Liberty 0.72 0.22 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07 Madison 1.89 0.57 0.22 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.17 Manatee 27.57 8.27 3.14 1.65 1.74 1.74 2.61 2.52 Marion 33.67 10.10 3.84 2.02 2.12 2.12 3. 18 3.08 Martin 14.97 4.49 1.71 0.90 0.94 0.94 1.41 1.37 Miami dade 250.01 75.00 28.50 15.00 15.75 15.75 23.63 22.88 Monroe 10.70 3.21 1.22 0.64 0.67 0.67 1.01 0.98 Nassau 7.51 2.25 0.86 0.45 0.47 0.47 0.71 0.69 Okaloosa 15.71 4.71 1.79 0.94 0.99 0.99 1.48 1.44 Okeechobee 2.84 0.85 0.32 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.27 0.26 Orange 112.77 33.83 12.86 6.77 7.10 7.10 10.66 10.32 Osceola 24.62 7.39 2.81 1.48 1.55 1.55 2.33 2.25 Palm Beach 161.76 48.53 18.44 9.71 10.19 10.19 15.29 14.80 Pasco 28.59 8.58 3.26 1.72 1. 80 1.80 2.70 2.62 Pinellas 61.86 18.56 7.05 3.71 3.90 3.90 5.85 5.66 Polk 62.73 18.82 7.15 3.76 3.95 3.95 5.93 5.74 Putnam 6.62 1.99 0.75 0.40 0.42 0.42 0.63 0.61 St Johns 11.98 3.59 1.37 0.72 0.75 0.75 1.13 1.10 St Lucie 17.68 5.30 2.02 1.06 1.11 1.1 1 1.67 1.62 Santa Rosa 11.58 3.47 1.32 0.69 0.73 0.73 1.09 1.06 Sarasota 15.38 4.61 1.75 0.92 0.97 0.97 1.45 1.41 Seminole 49.11 14.73 5.60 2.95 3.09 3.09 4.64 4.49 Sumter 7.79 2.34 0.89 0.47 0.49 0.49 0.74 0.71 Suwannee 3.38 1.01 0.39 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.32 0.31 Taylor 1.93 0.58 0.22 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.18 Union 1.27 0.38 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.12 Volusia 37.23 11.17 4.24 2.23 2.35 2.35 3.52 3.41 Wakulla 3.03 0.91 0.35 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.29 0.28 Walton 5.37 1.61 0.61 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.51 0.49

PAGE 59

59 Ta ble A 3 Continued County Domestic (residential) Water use for irrigation Evaporation Runoff Shallow infiltration Deep infiltration Recharge to aquifer Recharge to surface water 30% of domestic water Washington 1.96 0.59 0.22 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.18

PAGE 60

60 Table A 4 Waste water reuse in all counties in Florida County Ground Application Injection Surface Disposal To Septic tank Alachua 2.12 7.79 7.98 3.56 Baker 0.17 0.52 0.80 Bay 0.55 33.34 3.40 Bradford 1.60 4.03 1.01 Brevard 14.58 17.40 5.65 8.51 Broward 11.47 101.24 77.57 8.09 Calhoun 0.47 0.61 Charlotte 4.46 3.00 5.03 Citrus 2.81 6.25 Clay 1.10 17.24 3.20 Collier 26.01 1.46 1.37 3.84 Columbia 2.06 2.59 Desoto 0.29 0.69 1.05 Dixie 0.25 1.03 Duval 0.78 9 8.72 9.62 Escambia 3.47 2.91 63.54 7.12 Flagler 4.83 0.96 0.53 Franklin 0.43 0.64 0.57 Gadsden 0.37 1.86 1.76 Gilchrist 0.18 0.76 Glades 0.12 0.65 Gulf 0.16 0.86 0.61 Hamilton 0.11 16.31 0.43 Hardee 0.38 0.79 0.72 Hendry 3.00 0.20 0.95 Hernando 4.56 0.09 5.10 Highlands 2.33 3.83 Hillsborough 29.42 86.20 11.97 Holmes 0.70 0.97 Indian River 6.99 1.47 3.55 Jackson 0.75 2.02 1.99 Jefferson 0.12 0.43 0.60 Lafayette 0.23 0.34 Lake 10.58 0.32 7.37 L ee 22.93 1.25 15.01 9.83 Leon 18.29 4.09 Levy 0.47 2.05 Liberty 0.13 0.37 Madison 0.92 0.84 Manatee 15.51 5.56 8.61 1.93 Marion 7.79 10.97

PAGE 61

61 Table A 4 Continued County Ground Application Injection Surface Disposal To Septic tan k Martin 3.66 3.20 0.27 3.43 Miami D ade 14.21 89.82 207.07 16.96 Monroe 0.27 0.94 5.84 3.45 Nassau 1.64 37.48 1.96 Okaloosa 16.71 2.62 Okeechobee 0.74 1.61 Orange 70.89 2.26 11.10 Osceola 15.79 0.21 2.75 Palm Beach 25.78 57.43 24.86 8.23 Pasco 14.94 7.50 8.72 Pinellas 48.55 33.41 24.12 1.87 Polk 19.74 19.63 13.55 Putnam 33.89 4.06 St Johns 3.16 5.85 3.29 St Lucie 2.04 8.63 0.17 5.31 Santa Rosa 2.61 0.66 3.04 4.59 Sarasota 12.87 1.93 11.42 6.61 Seminole 36.97 11.98 4.36 Sumter 1.84 1.98 Suwannee 0.87 1.66 1.74 Taylor 0.11 45.56 0.98 Union 0.47 0.40 Volusia 16.60 14.89 10.05 Wakulla 0.83 0.97 1.05 Walton 3.81 2.33 Washington 0.14 0.61 1.07

PAGE 62

62 Table A 5 Recharge, urban (R u ) for all count ies in Florida County Recharge from supply pipes leakage Recharge from waste water pipes leakage Recharge from domestic irrigation Recharge from Septic tank Recharge from treated waste water reuse Recharge from treated waste water power plant Total Recha rge, urban (R u ) Alachua 3.39 1.99 1.82 3.56 7.69 0.00 18.45 Baker 0.11 0.08 0.21 0.8 0.15 0.00 1.35 Bay 7.04 3.77 1.49 3.4 0.17 0.00 15.86 Bradford 0.17 0.63 0.25 1.01 0.66 1.41 4.12 Brevard 3.61 4.18 3.19 8.51 20.68 0.00 40.17 Broward 30.97 21.14 16 .07 8.09 92.79 0.00 169.06 Calhoun 0.09 0.05 0.13 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.88 Charlotte 0.95 0.83 1.15 5.03 3.87 0.00 11.83 Citrus 1.68 0.31 1.59 6.25 1.33 0.00 11.16 Clay 1.77 2.04 1.33 3.2 0.42 7.58 16.34 Collier 6.39 3.20 3.12 3.84 9.73 2.20 28.49 Columbi a 0.44 0.23 0.52 2.59 0.65 0.00 4.43 Desoto 1.39 0.11 0.31 1.05 0.13 0.00 2.99 Dixie 0.08 0.03 0.13 1.03 0.00 0.00 1.27 Duval 14.29 11.06 7.03 9.62 0.51 0.00 42.50 Escambia 5.36 7.45 2.81 7.12 6.07 0.00 28.80 Flagler 0.75 0.64 0.46 0.53 2.11 0.00 4.49 Franklin 0.23 0.12 0.15 0.57 0.14 0.00 1.20 Gadsden 0.55 0.25 0.44 1.76 0.23 0.74 3.96 Gilchrist 0.03 0.02 0.14 0.76 0.11 0.00 1.06 Glades 0.07 0.01 0.09 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.82 Gulf 0.18 0.11 0.13 0.61 0.05 0.07 1.15 Hamilton 0.11 1.82 0.12 0.43 0.10 0 .00 2.59 Hardee 0.21 0.13 0.17 0.72 0.21 0.00 1.44 Hendry 0.64 0.19 0.35 0.95 1.03 0.00 3.16 Hernando 2.43 0.52 1.58 5.1 1.45 0.27 11.35 Highlands 1.10 0.26 0.64 3.83 1.42 0.00 7.24 Hillsborough 21.58 12.85 8.92 11.97 5.19 0.00 60.51 Holmes 0.17 0.08 0.20 0.97 0.00 0.00 1.42 Indian River 1.67 0.94 0.83 3.55 3.32 0.20 10.51 Jackson 0.30 0.31 0.41 1.99 0.24 2.49 5.73 Jefferson 0.09 0.06 0.12 0.6 0.03 0.00 0.90 Lafayette 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.34 0.21 0.00 0.66 Lake 4.79 1.12 3.18 7.37 5.22 0.00 21.68 Le e 6.35 4.35 3.30 9.83 9.35 0.00 33.18

PAGE 63

63 Table A 5 Continued County Recharge from supply pipes leakage Recharge from waste water pipes leakage Recharge from domestic irrigation Recharge from Septic tank Recharge from treated waste water reuse Recharge fr om treated waste water power plant Total Recharge, urban (R u ) Leon 4.28 2.03 2.33 4.09 5.92 0.00 18.65 Levy 0.26 0.05 0.50 2.05 0.25 0.49 3.60 Liberty 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.37 0.12 1.89 2.51 Madison 0.20 0.10 0.18 0.84 0.29 0.00 1.61 Manatee 6.71 3.30 2.6 1 1.93 9.62 0.00 24.16 Marion 3.36 0.87 3.18 10.97 3.11 0.00 21.49 Martin 2.21 0.79 1.41 3.43 3.88 0.00 11.74 Miami dade 41.91 34.57 23.63 16.96 85.31 0.69 203.07 Monroe 0.00 0.78 1.01 3.45 0.09 0.03 5.36 Nassau 0.82 4.35 0.71 1.96 0.62 0.00 8.46 Oka loosa 2.76 1.86 1.48 2.62 6.38 0.13 15.22 Okeechobee 0.30 0.08 0.27 1.61 0.23 0.00 2.50 Orange 25.41 8.13 10.66 11.1 43.49 3.89 102.67 Osceola 3.60 1.78 2.33 2.75 11.18 0.63 22.26 Palm Beach 28.29 12.01 15.29 8.23 60.79 0.00 124.60 Pasco 12.32 2.49 2. 70 8.72 8.11 0.00 34.34 Pinellas 4.79 11.79 5.85 1.87 45.36 0.00 69.65 Polk 9.06 4.17 5.93 13.55 12.34 0.00 45.04 Putnam 0.38 3.77 0.63 4.06 0.00 0.00 8.84 St Johns 1.98 1.00 1.13 3.29 1.43 0.00 8.83 St Lucie 2.15 1.20 1.67 5.31 8.41 0.05 18.80 Santa Rosa 1.62 0.59 1.09 4.59 1.62 0.00 9.51 Sarasota 3.46 2.91 1.45 6.61 5.17 0.00 19.61 Seminole 8.03 5.44 4.64 4.36 25.55 0.49 48.51 Sumter 0.53 0.20 0.74 1.98 0.92 0.05 4.43 Suwannee 0.17 0.28 0.32 1.74 0.30 0.00 2.81 Taylor 0.21 5.07 0.18 0.98 0.10 0 .00 6.54 Union 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.4 0.00 0.00 0.62 Volusia 6.59 3.50 3.52 10.05 0.00 0.00 23.66 Wakulla 0.26 0.14 0.29 1.05 0.09 0.00 1.83 Walton 0.88 0.31 0.51 2.33 1.69 0.00 5.72 Washington 0.14 0.08 0.19 1.07 0.13 0.00 1.60

PAGE 64

64 Table A 6 Discharge, u rban (Du) for all counties in Florida County Recharge from irrigation Recharge from waste water reuse Waste water disposal Total Discharge, urban (D u ) Alachua 1.77 0.59 7.98 10.33 Baker 0.21 0.00 0.52 0.73 Bay 1.44 0.17 33.34 34.95 Bradford 0.24 0.64 4 .03 4.91 Brevard 3.09 4.41 5.65 13.15 Broward 15.56 1.62 77.57 94.75 Calhoun 0.12 0.00 0.47 0.59 Charlotte 1.11 1.14 0 2.25 Citrus 1.54 0.54 0 2.08 Clay 1.29 0.34 17.24 18.87 Collier 3.02 5.90 1.37 10.29 Columbia 0.50 0.63 0 1.13 Desoto 0.30 0.06 0.69 1.06 Dixie 0.13 0.00 0.25 0.38 Duval 6.80 0.24 98.72 105.76 Escambia 2.72 0.00 245.4399 248.16 Flagler 0.45 1.16 0.96 2.56 Franklin 0.15 0.13 0.64 0.92 Gadsden 0.42 0.05 1.86 2.34 Gilchrist 0.13 0.03 0 0.16 Glades 0.09 0.00 0 0.09 Gulf 0.13 0 .05 0.86 1.03 Hamilton 0.12 0.00 16.31 16.43 Hardee 0.17 0.00 0.79 0.96 Hendry 0.34 0.86 0.2 1.40 Hernando 1.53 0.61 0.09 2.23 Highlands 0.61 0.00 0 0.61 Hillsborough 8.63 3.69 86.2 98.52 Holmes 0.20 0.00 0.7 0.90 Indian River 0.80 1.72 1.47 4.00 Jackson 0.40 0.23 83.4923 84.12 Jefferson 0.12 0.03 0.43 0.57 Lafayette 0.06 0.00 0 0.06 Lake 3.08 2.21 0.32 5.61 Lee 3.19 6.98 15.01 25.18 Leon 2.25 5.39 0 7.65 Levy 0.48 0.09 0 0.58 Liberty 0.07 0.00 0 0.07 Madison 0.17 0.28 0 0.45 Manatee 2.52 4.47 31.451 38.44 Marion 3.08 2.03 0 5.12 Martin 1.37 0.97 22.6833 25.03 Miami dade 22.88 4.33 207.07 234.28 Monroe 0.98 0.08 5.84 6.90 Nassau 0.69 0.50 37.48 38.67 Okaloosa 1.44 4.54 0 5.98 Okeechobee 0.26 0.23 0 0.49 Orange 10.32 15.62 2.26 28.20

PAGE 65

65 Table A 6 Continued Note: All data in Mgd County Recharge from irrigation runoff Recharge from waste water reuse Waste water disposal Total Discharge, urban (D u ) Orange 10.32 15.62 2.26 28.20 Osceola 2.25 1.58 0.21 4.04 Palm Beach 14.80 7.42 24.86 47.08 Pasco 2.62 2.42 7.5 12.54 Pinellas 5.66 14.81 24.12 44.59 Polk 5.74 2.64 33.8806 42.26 Putnam 0.61 0.00 46.539 47.14 St Johns 1.10 0.95 5.85 7.89 St Lucie 1.62 0.62 0.17 2.41 Santa Rosa 1.06 0.68 3.04 4.77 Sarasota 1.41 3.32 11.42 16.15 Seminole 4.49 4.52 11.98 2 0.99 Sumter 0.71 0.38 0 1.10 Suwannee 0.31 0.25 93.5791 94.14 Taylor 0.18 0.00 45.56 45.74 Union 0.12 0.00 0.47 0.59 Volusia 3.41 0.00 133.7633 137.17 Wakulla 0.28 0.09 26.7958 27.16 Walton 0.49 0.90 0 1.39 Wasington 0.18 0.00 0.61 0.79

PAGE 66

66 Table A 7 Calculating Withdrawal from Aquifer (Waq); Recharge, urban (Ru); Withdrawal from surface water (Ws); Discharge, urban (Du) for HUs Florida County Portion of each county in Hydrological unit Withdrawal from Aquifer (W aq ) Recharge, urban (R u ) Withdrawal from surface water (W s ) Discharge, urban (D u ) Mgd Mgal/year Mgd Mgal/year Mgd Mgal/ year Mgd Mgal/ year 0307 Altamaha St Mary's Baker 0.85 2.74 1.15 0.62 Columbia 0.03 0.25 0.14 0.04 Duval 0.20 29.13 8.57 21.3 3 Nassau 0.99 42.42 8.39 38.37 Union 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.03 74.63 27,239.09 18.29 6675.59 60.39 22,041.68 0308 St. Johns Alachua 0.58 21.72 10.68 5.98 Baker 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 Bradford 0.02 0.09 0.08 0.10 Brevard 1.00 16.99 40.17 14.09 13.15 Clay 0.97 25.23 15.93 18.39 Duval 0.79 114.61 33.73 83.93 Flagler 1.00 7.04 4.49 0.07 2.56 Indian river 0.52 8.26 5.45 2.07 Lake 0.81 44.47 17.65 0.49 4.56 Levy 0.16 0.97 0.56 0.31 0.09 Marion 0.80 37.32 17.25 4.11 Martin 0.01 0.14 0.07 0.15 0.14 Okeechobee 0.12 0.30 0.31 0.21 0.06 Oscelo 0.38 13.33 8.36 1.52 Polk 0.03 4.10 1.13 0.55 1.06 Putnam 1.00 28.02 8.84 45.02 47.14 Seminole 1.00 69.71 48 .51 20.99 St Johns 1.00 18.41 8.83 7.89 Stlucie 0.09 2.85 1.69 0.23 0.22 Volusia 1.00 58.95 23.66 130.63 137.17 472.52 172,470.62 247.39 90298.77 191.75 69,987.81 351.16 128,171.75

PAGE 67

67 Table A 7 Continued County Portion of each county in Hydrological u nit Withdrawal from Aquifer (W aq ) Recharge, urban (R u ) Withdrawal from surface water (W s ) Discharge, urban (D u ) Mgd Mgal/year Mgd Mgal/year Mgd Mgal/ year Mgd Mgal/ year 0309 Southern Florida Broward 1.00 260.71 169.06 0 94.75 Charlotte 0.29 2.00 3.38 1.81 0.64 Collier 1.00 50.03 28.49 10.85 10.29 Glades 1.00 1.30 0.82 3.93 0.09 Hendry 1.00 3.34 3.16 3.77 1.40 Highlands 1.00 11.45 7.24 0.03 0.57 Lake 0.02 1.09 0.43 0.01 0.11 Lee 0.79 52.66 26.11 8.24 19.81 Martin 0.99 24.23 11.66 26.41 24.86 Miami Dade 1.00 414.87 203.07 0 234.28 Monroe 1.00 0.18 5.36 0 6.90 Okeechobee 0.88 2.12 2.19 1.48 0.43 Orange 1.00 271.16 102.67 0 28.20 Oscelo 0.62 22.15 13.90 0 2.52 Palm beach 1.00 210.45 124 .60 48.48 47.08 Polk 0.35 57.01 15.72 7.72 14.75 St. Lucie 0.87 27.47 16.30 2.19 2.09 1,412.22 515,460.11 734.16 267968.49 114.92 41,944.30 488.78 178,403.71 0310 Peace Tampa Bay Charlotte 0.71 4.99 8.45 4.52 1.60 Citrus 1.00 23.52 11.16 0.29 2.08 Desoto 1.00 10.37 2.99 12.40 1.06 Hardee 1.00 9.16 1.44 0 0.96 Hernando 1.00 41.37 11.35 0.08 2.23 Highlands 1.00 11.45 7.24 0.00 0.04 Hillsborough 1.00 110.20 60.51 6.43 6.90 Lake 0.17 9.07 3.60 0.10 0.93 Lee 0.15 10.02 4.97 1.57 3.77 Levy 0.02 0.13 0.08 0.04 0.01 Manatee 1.00 17.21 24.16 68.69 38.44

PAGE 68

68 T able A 7 Continued County Portion of each county in Hydrological unit Withdrawal from Aquifer (W aq ) Recharge, urban (R u ) Withdrawal from surface water (W s ) Discharge urban (D u ) Mgd Mgal/year Mgd Mgal/year Mgd Mgal/ year Mgd Mgal/ year Marion 0.19 9.00 4.16 0 0.99 Pasco 1.00 179.47 34.34 0.81 12.54 Pinellas 0.99 40.14 69.24 0.55 44.33 Polk 0.63 102.24 28 .19 13.84 26.45 Sarasota 1.00 28.60 19.61 1.18 16.15 Sumter 1.00 9.32 4.41 16.98 1.10 616.26 224,935.27 295.91 108005.40 127.48 46,529.52 159.58 58,244.92 0311 Suwanee Alachua 0.42 15.79 7.77 0 4.35 Baker 0.14 0.45 0.19 0 0.10 B radford 0.98 4.43 4.04 0 4.81 Clay 0.03 0.65 0.41 0 0.47 Columbia 0.97 7.50 4.28 0 1.09 Dixie 1.00 1.91 1.27 0 0.38 Gilchrist 1.00 1.86 1.06 0 0.16 Gulf 0.43 1.16 0.50 0.71 0.45 Hamilton 1.00 36.08 2.59 0 16.43 Jefferson 0.60 1.05 0.54 0 0.34 Lafayette 1.00 1.01 0.66 0 0.06 Levy 0.20 1.24 0.73 0.39 0.12 Madison 1.00 3.03 1.61 0 0.45 Suwannee 1.00 5.70 2.81 101.01 94.14 Taylor 1.00 44.83 6.54 2.96 45.74 Union 0.95 1.77 0.59 0.56 128.46 46,889.52 35.57 12984.24 105.08 38,352.44 169.65 61,921.46 0312 Ochlockonee Franklin 0.12 0.25 0.14 0 0.11 Gadsen 0.79 4.63 3.14 1.02 1.85 Gulf 0.15 0.40 0.17 0.25 0.15 Liberty 0.37 0.61 0.92 0 0.02

PAGE 69

69 Table A 7 Continued County Port ion of each county in Hydrological unit Withdrawal from Aquifer (W aq ) Recharge, urban (R u ) Withdrawal from surface water (W s ) Discharge urban (D u ) Mgd Mgal/year Mgd Mgal/year Mgd Mgal/ year Mgd Mgal/ year Leon 1.00 42.85 18.65 0 7.65 Jefferson 0.4 0 0.71 0.36 0 0.23 Wakulla 1.00 4.31 1.83 28.38 27.16 53.76 19,621.92 25.23 9208.51 29.64 10,819.61 37.18 13,570.42 0313 Apalachicola Bay 0.01 0.14 0.23 0.64 0.50 Calhoum 0.93 1.56 0.82 0 0.55 Franklin 0.88 1.86 1.06 0 0.81 Gad sen 0.21 1.20 0.82 0.26 0.48 Gulf 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 Jackson 0.87 6.50 4.98 77.82 73.12 Liberty 0.63 1.05 1.58 0 0.04 Washington 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.01 12.40 4,527.21 9.54 3481.73 78.81 28,765.50 75.53 27,569.43 0314 Cho ctawhatchee Escambia Escambia 1.00 85.49 28.80 224.54 248.16 Santa Rosa 1.00 19.85 9.51 0 4.77 Okaloosa 1.00 28.38 15.22 0 5.98 Walton 1.00 8.44 5.72 0 1.39 Holmes 1.00 2.73 1.42 0 0.90 Bay 0.98 9.34 15.62 44.20 34.41 Washing ton 0.98 2.75 1.57 0 0.77 Jackson 0.13 0.98 0.75 0 10.99 Gulf 0.40 1.09 0.47 0.67 0.42 Calhoun 0.07 0.12 0.06 0 0.04 159.16 58,093.22 79.14 28886.51 269.41 98,334.94 307.85 112,363.47

PAGE 70

70 Table A 8. Calculating Impact indicator for grou nd and surface water resource in HUs Florida Waq Rp Ru Raq Raq (D/P) Daq Ws Dp Du Dn Dw Dw (D/P) 0307 Altamaha St Mary's Developed 27,239 120,939 6,676 100,376 0.50 100,376 230,479 22,042 252,520 352,896 1.10 Pristine 201,253 201,253 201,253 1 20,752 120,752 322,005 0308 St. Johns Developed 172,471 454,778 90,299 372,606 0.44 372,606 69,988 1,027,423 128,172 1,085,607 1,458,213 1.09 Pristine 838,261 838,261 838,261 502,957 502,957 1,341,218 0309 Southern Florida Developed 515,4 60 519,335 267,968 271,844 0.30 271,844 41,944 1,070,029 178,404 1,206,488 1,478,332 1.02 Pristine 904,318 904,318 904,318 542,591 542,591 1,446,909 0310 Peace Tampa Bay Developed 224,935 629,546 108,005 512,617 0.33 512,617 46,530 2,185,904 5 8,245 2,197,619 2,710,236 1.09 Pristine 1,550,082 1,550,082 1,550,082 930,049 930,049 2,480,132 0311 Suwanee Developed 46,890 145,947 12,984 112,042 0.40 112,042 38,352 356,219 61,921 379,788 491,830 1.09 Pristine 282,893 282,893 282,893 169,736 169,736 452,630 0312 Ochlockonee Developed 19,622 60,775 9,209 50,362 0.49 50,362 10,820 120,984 13,570 123,735 174,097 1.05 Pristine 103,771 103,771 103,771 62,262 62,262 166,033 0313 Apalachicola Developed 4,527 27,731 3,482 26,686 0.58 26,686 28,765 51,925 27,569 50,729 77,415 1.06 Pristine 45,722 45,722 45,722 27,433 27,433 73,154 0314 Choctawhatchee Escambia Developed 58,093 142,920 28,887 113,714 0.39 113,714 98,335 375,079 112,363 389,108 502,822 1.08 Pristi ne 290,070 290,070 290,070 174,042 174,042 464,112 Note: All values in Mgal/year.

PAGE 71

71 ( APPENDIX B ) CALCULATING VARIABLE S FOR UF CAMPUS Table B 1. Calculating Recharge, precipitation (Rp); Discharge, precipitation (Dp) and Evaporation from precipit ation for UF Campus Case Type Evapotranspiration Runoff Shallow Infiltration Deep infiltration 1 40% 10% 25% 25% 2 38% 20% 21% 21% 3 35% 30% 20% 15% 4 30% 55% 10% 5% 5 45% 55% 0% 0% 6 Parking 15% 85% 0% 0% Precipi tation (Year 2010) 39.67 inches/ year Land use type (acres) Case Type Area Evapotranspiration Runoff Shallow Infiltration Deep infiltration SF Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Buildings 6 8836001 32.78 185.73 0.00 0.00 Greens 2 32242984 30 2.99 21.32 165.07 167.44 Road 4 3858450 28.63 52.48 9.41 0.64 Parking 5 3676833 40.92 50.01 0.00 0.00 Pavement 4 6665869 49.45 12.12 0.04 8.24 Conservation 1 14233577 140.79 0.04 86.75 88.00 Pristine 1 69,674,401 689.20 172.30 430.75 430.75 Developed Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 394.95 Pristine Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 452.33 Developed Discharge, Precipitation (Dp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff =375,079.48 Pristine Discharge, Precipitation (Dp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 387.67

PAGE 72

72 Table B 2. Calculating Withdrawal, aquifer (Waq) for UF Campus Domestic water to Co gen plant (make up water) Domestic water to chilled water (mak e up water) Domestic water to buildings Evaporative water loss for generating electricity (0.14 gal/KWh) Leakage in supply pipes Withdrawal from aquifer (Waq) Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year 27.28 124.26 695.85 63.52 94.15 1,0 05.06 Table B 3 Calculating Recharge, urban (R u ) for UF Campus Table B 4 Calculating Discharge, urban (D u ) for UF Campus Recharge from supply pipes leakage Recharge from waste water pipes leakage Recharge from domestic irrigation Recharge from Septic tank Recharge from treated waste water reuse Recharge from treated waste water power plant Total Recharge, urban (Ru) Mgal/ year Mgal/ year Mgal/ year Mgal/ year Mgal/ year Mgal/ year Mgal/ year 94.15 69.58 254.96 418.70 Recharge from irrigati on Recharge from waste water reuse Waste water disposal Total Discharge, urban (D u ) Mgal/ year Mgal/ year Mgal/ year Mgal/ year 95.42 95.42

PAGE 73

73 ( APPENDIX C ) CALCULATING VARIABLE S FOR RINKER HALL Table C 1 Calculating Recharge, precipitation (Rp); Di scharge, precipitation (Dp) and Evaporation from precipitation for Rinker Hall Precipitation (Year 2010) 39.67 inches/ year Land use type Case Type Area Evapotranspiration Runoff Shallow Infiltration Deep infiltration SF Mgal/year Mgal/year Mga l/year Mgal/year Rinker Hall 5 18055 0.07 0.25 0.00 0.00 Perry yard 2683 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 Greens 2 37062 0.35 0.18 0.19 0.19 Road 4 11383 0.08 0.15 0.03 0.01 Parking 5 7383 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.01 Pavement 4 12677 0.09 0.17 0.03 0.02 Pristine 1 892 44 0.88 0.22 0.55 0.55 Developed Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 0.37 Pristine Recharge, Precipitation (Rp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + deep infiltration = 0.83 Developed Discharge, Precipitation (Dp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 1.01 Pristine Discharge, Precipitation (Dp) = 0.5 x shallow infiltration + runoff = 0.50 Table C 2. Calculating Withdrawal, aquifer (Waq) for Rinker Hall Domestic water to Co gen plant (make up water) Domestic wat er to chilled water (make up water) Domestic water to buildings Perry yard irrigation from waste water treatment plant Site irrigation from waste water treatment plant Evaporative water loss for generating electricity (0.14 gal/KWh) Withdrawal from aquifer (Waq) Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year 0 0.32 0.22 .002 3.87 .06 4.30

PAGE 74

74 Table C 3 Calculating Recharge, urban (R u ) for Rinker Hall Recharge from supply pipes leakage Recharge from waste water pipes leakage Rechar ge from domestic water irrigation Recharge from Septic tank Recharge from treated waste water irrigation Recharge from treated waste water direct injection Total Recharge, urban (Ru) Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/ year 0.02 0.02 0 0 1.23 0 1.27 Table C 4 Calculating Discharge, urban (D u ) for Rinker Hall Recharge from domestic water irrigation Recharge from waste water irrigation Waste water disposal Total Discharge, urban (Du) Mgal/year Mgal/year Mgal/ year Mgal/year 0 1.18 0 1.18

PAGE 75

75 LIST OF REFERENCES Adalberth K (1997): Building and Environment 32 (4) 317 20 Alcamo J Doll P, Heinrichs T, Kaspar, F, Lehner, B, Rosch T, Siebert S (2003 a ): Glo bal estimates of water withdrawals and availability under current and future business as usual conditions. Hydrological Sciences Journal 48 (3 ) 339 348 Alcamo J, Doll, P, Heinrichs T, Kaspar, F, Lehner B, Rosch T, Siebert S (2003b): Development and testin g of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability. Hydrological Sciences Journal 48 (3 ) 317 337 Alcamo J, Doll P Kaspar F Siebert, S (1997): Global Change and Global Scenarios of Water Use and Availability. Centre for Environmental Systems R esea rch (CES). University of Kassel Allan J A (1993): Fortunately there are substitutes for water otherwise our hydro politic al futures would be impossible. In: Priorities for Water Resources Allocation and Management, London, UK: Overse as Development Admin istration 13 26. Allan JA (1994): Overall perspec tives on countries and regions. In: Rogers P, Lydon P (eds) Water in the Arab World: perspectives and prognoses. Cambridg e, MA: Harvard University Press 65 100 Allan J A (2003): Virtual Water: the Water, Food and Trade Nexus: Useful Concept or Misleading Metaphor? Water International 28(1) 4 11 Askham N C (2006): Excel for cal culating EPD data for Concrete. (Conference proceedings, SETAC Europe 13th LCA Case Study Symposium Proceedings with Focus on the Buildi ng and Construct ion Sector, Stuttgart, Germany Bayart J B, Bulle C Deschenes L, Margni M, Pfister S, zVince F, Koehler A (2010): A framework for assessing of f stream freshwater use in LCA. Int J LCA 15 439 453 Bush P W Johnston R H (1998): G round Water Hyd raulics, Regional Flow, and Ground Water Development of the Floridan Aquifer System in Florida and Parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY, Savenije H H G, Gautam R (2005): The water footprint of cotton consumption Research Report Series no. 18 Cole RJ, Kernan PC (1996): Life Cycle Energy Use in Office Buildings. Building and Environment 31 (4) 307 317

PAGE 76

76 Cole RJ, Rousseau D (1992): Environmental Auditing for Building Construction: Energy and Air Pollution Indices for Building Materials. Building and Environment 27 (1), 23 30 Guine JB Gorre M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Koning A de, Oers, L van, Wegener Sleeswijk, A Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, Bruijn H de, Duin R van, Huijbregts M AJ (2 002): Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. I: LCA in perspective. IIa: Guide. IIb: Operational anne x. III: Scientific background. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Europe Steering Committee (2008): Standardisation Efforts to Measure Greenhouse Gases of Life Cycle Assessment 13 (2) 87 88 Shiklomanov IA (2000): Appraisal and assessment of world water resour International 25(1) 11 32 Shiklomanov IA, Rodda JC (2003): World Water Resources at the Beginning of the Twenty First Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Stewart M, Weidema, B P (2005): A Consistent Framework for Assessing the Imp acts from Resource Use of Life Cycle Assessment 10 (4 ) 240 247 Torcellini P, Long N, Judkoff R (2003): Consumptive Water Use for U.S. Power Production. Natio nal Renewable Energy Laboratory NREL/T P 550 33905 U nited N ations (1997) Comprehensive Assessment of Freshwater Resources of the World. The United Nations Report on Sustainable Development, accessed March 1, 2011, http://geocompendium.grid.unep.ch/reference_scheme/final_version/GEO/Geo 2 117.htm United States Environmental Protection Agency (1993): Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Source Pollution in Coastal Waters. Washington D. C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency

PAGE 77

77 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Neetika Chhabra got her rchitecture from School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi, India in 2009. Her curiosity to learn about economic and envi ronmental aspects of built envir onment motivated her to pursue m aster b uilding c onstruction at University of Florida, USA. Her desire to enhance her knowledge in the field of Life Cycle Assessment encouraged her to pursue research work under Dr Robert Ries at University of Florida. While pursuing her graduate studies, she was a research assistant in the department of Building Construction (2010 2011). After graduating, s he joined construction industry to apply her knowledge and skills gained fr om M.E. Ri nker Sr., School of Building Construction.