GreenWater Stakeholders Package

Stakeholders Meeting PackageReference Materials

Moving forward to rejuvenate the Rotunda and create a rainwater harvesting system for theSustainable SFU Learning Garden.

2013

Jeff Lemon, Justin Bauer, June Bay, Sarah VanderveerGreenWater: ChangeLab: Simon Fraser University

3/6/2013

Table&of&Contents&

Section(1((Final(Project(Proposal( 3(Project(Proposal:(Rotunda(Rooftop(Ecological(Restoration(&(Water(Management( 4(

Section(2((Survey(Results( 10(Survey:(Student(Attitudes(Toward(Current(Greenspaces(on(SFU(Burnaby(Campus( (Created(by:(Darrien(Morton(&(Jeff(Lemon!Compiled(and(Analyzed(by:(Darrien(Morton( 11(

( ( (( ( Survey(Data(Set( ( 14(

Section(3((Proposed(Costs( 17(Cost(Estimates( 18(

Quotes(on(Water(Tanks(for(the(Learning(Garden( ( 19( (SFU(Transportation(Centre(Rotunda(Roof((Reflective(Pool(RetroQfitting( ( 24(

(External(Grant(Funding( 29(

!

Section(4((Rainwater(Harvesting(for(the(Learning(Garden( 30(Potential(Tank(Placement( 31((Rainwater(Statistics(for(SFU(Burnaby(Campus( 41((Index(of(Potential(Rainwater(Harvesting(Tanks( 48(

!

Section(5((Rotunda(Rooftop(Ecological(Restoration(Project( 63(Proposed(Use(of(Rotunda(Greenspace( 64((Creating(Social(Spaces(on(the(Restored(Rotunda( 71( (( ( Quotes(on(Benches(for(Rotunda(Seating( ( 75((Effect(of(Roof(Material(on(Water(Quality(for(Rainwater(Harvesting(Systems(Report( (

By:(Texas(Water(Development(Board,(January(2010( 77!

PROJECT PROPOSAL: ROTUNDA ROOF TOP ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION & WATER

MANAGEMENT

Multiple project ideas were proposed by group members. Originally we were looking at a more intense project, combining several different ideas including water harvesting, the revitalization of the garden space on the Rotunda roof, and a food production co-op with raised garden beds. Research was done, including uncovering previous proposals, and the projects were pitched as separate, but connected projects to key members in Facilities. All projects have the potential to be brought to completion, but the extensive work, including safety issues and the inclusion of academics with the roof-top, co-op garden on the Education Building resulted in us letting go of that part. (It is also likely that Sustainable SFU will be taking this project on in the future). In consideration of the time-frame and the pre-existing infrastructure, we decided to move forward with the rejuvenation of the Rotunda gardens and rainwater harvesting for the learning garden.

Project Proposal: Rotunda Roof Top Ecological Restoration & Water Management Justin Bauer, June Bay, Jeff Lemon, and Sarah Vanderveer

i

Definitions | 23/01/2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS Definitions ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Project Description ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

Project Goals & Measurements ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Budget ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Timeline ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Project Proposal: Rotunda Roof Top Ecological Restoration & Water ManagementJustin Bauer, June Bay, Jeff Lemon, and Sarah Vanderveer

1

Definitions | 23/01/2013

DEFINITIONS Sustainability: Sustainability can be scientifically defined as a dynamic state in which global ecological and social systems are not systematically undermined. We believe that sustainability needs to ensure that resource consumption is balanced by resources absorbed by the ecosystem. For a community to be sustainable, it needs to be one that is largely determined by the network of resources providing its food, water, and energy and by the ability of natural systems to process its wastes.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION Multiple project ideas were proposed by group members. Originally we were looking at a more intense project, combining several different ideas including water harvesting, the revitalization of the garden space on the Rotunda roof, and a food production co-op with raised garden beds.

Research was done, including uncovering previous proposals, and the projects were pitched as separate, but connected projects to key members in Facilities. All projects have the potential to be brought to completion, but the extensive work, including safety issues and the inclusion of academics with the roof-top, co-op garden on the Education Building resulted in us letting go of that part. (It is also likely that Sustainable SFU will be taking this project on in the future). In consideration of the time-frame and the pre-existing infrastructure, we decided to move forward with the rejuvenation of the Rotunda gardens and rainwater harvesting for the learning garden.

We have decided to use permaculture in our plans for rejuvenating the Rotunda gardens. Our reason for choosing this is two-fold. First, permaculture is really easy to take care of. This was a concern for us, because we needed to make sure we could find someone to champion this legacy project after we have graduated from SFU. Sustainable SFU was very happy to oblige. Second, permaculture acts as a natural filtration-system for harvesting rainwater. This means that the rainwater collected for the learning garden will be pre-filtered and ready-to-use.

User Interface Plumbing (Learning Garden) Piping, taps, and other plumbing required to meet Learning Garden watering needs.

Water Storage Tank 550 Gallon water storage tank holds water until ready for use.

gWater overflow piping runs from water storage tank to drainage.

First Flush Device A first flush device and filter removes any remaining solids and unwanted elements from the water.

Existing Water Drainage System (Bed) gWater is deverted from the existing system

g y ( )PVC (Polyvinyl chloride pipe) brings the water to the Learning Garden area.

Roof Top Plant Bed (Rotunda)

Acts as a water regulator Reduces storm water

Removes metals from runoff water

Balances water runoff to a pH of 7

Provides ecological environment for

native species and pollinators

Provides positive biomass

Reduces ambient temperature

Provides an enjoyable

environment for people


2

Project Goals & Measurements | 23/01/2013

The garden space will rejuvenate part of the campus architectural landscape on top of the Rotunda building at SFU Burnaby. Not only will this make use of a poorly used campus landscape, but it will create a social space to encourage interaction, communication and community at the university. It will also support and work with native flora and fauna through the creation of native species permaculture that will also promote pollination by creating natural habitat for native bee populations as well as the, to be determined, possibility of bird and bat houses. The rainwater harvesting aspect of the project will be the main supply of water for the learning garden, reducing the use of potable water to a supplementary source.

PROJECT GOALS & MEASUREMENTS Our ability to evaluate the success of our project will be multifaceted including subjective, interactive and measurable methodologies.

A key evaluative measure is the successful implementation of the project, how it fits within of our project concept and definition of sustainability, the comprehensiveness of its development as well as its adaptability to unforeseen circumstances and barriers.

Since, in its current state, the space is primarily an area of transit between other spaces, with occasional summer use; the subjective aspect of our analysis will involve interpretation of personal use of the space by students, faculty and visitors. We will anticipate that the change in physical space and atmosphere affects the degree of interaction with the space, the social interaction and mood of people using the space. Dependent upon the date of completion and the weather, our capacity to evaluate this may be limited within the timeframe of the academic semester. Part of a long-term analysis will be the cohesive development of the permaculture itself and its support of native flora and fauna.

The space will also provide an ecological use as it will become habitable for native species as well as humans. These species can then be measured by means of physical inspection and at later dates by the department of biology at SFU if they so desire. Soil sampling of the beds at a later date can provide for a measurement of bacterial and fungal activity, as well as an education experience for SFU biology students. Ecological surveys can also be conducted to assess the roof as a functioning habitat for pollinators such as bees. Of which could also provide as a local academic resource.

We will also have measurable input in regards to the rainwater harvesting. The threshold of these measurements will be determined by the stakeholders. Measurements will be determined upon the learning garden requirements of water quality. As well as the requirements set forth by SFU, The City of Burnaby, and the present policies of The Province of British Columbia. Measurements may include water quality metrics such as: pH, bacterial counts, and the presents of metals. Measurements of usage may also be included whereby meters will have to be installed to measure reductions in storm water (total water collected and used + water absorbed by roof top beds), and total water collected and used in the learning garden.

Our decision making process involves a collaborative approach, based in dialectics and consensus building. This is combined with reasonability of goals and takes into consideration the feasibility of the considered goal within the scope of our project and timeframe. So far our individual roles have been versatile and adaptive, responding to time constraints, availability and skill set. In January, although we will continue to work collaboratively and interconnected as a group, we will likely split up into two groups, each group focusing on a particular project.


3

Budget | 23/01/2013

BUDGET As of right now, our budget is almost entirely dependent upon stakeholders. Because of this, there are a number of meetings at will be held by the end of February. Mike Soron has asked us to attend a round of meetings focused upon the Learning Garden that are to be held next week (January 28-30). In these meetings we will be able to better assert the water requirements of the Learning Garden will be and the costs. With the scope of the rotunda project and its associated costs are dependent upon the approval of the Facilities application for provincial funding to renovate the entire Rotunda area, we have elected to cost out the rotunda portion of this project, as this was not part of the proposed renovation budget. The range of costs for this part of the project is estimated to be between $1000 and $30,000. This range is based upon a number of set and variable costs. To begin, the number of beds selected to be reclaimed and the type of reclamation (green roof, pond, or bog) will inevitably dictate the range in costs for the rotunda potion of this project. Once decided, other associated costs will be as follow: soil type, amount soil needed, native plant species, number of plants needed, etc. These costs will not be fully known until after stakeholders have met in February and Facilities receives its a response from the provincial government in regards to the renovation proposal. The range of costs for the rainwater harvesting portion of this project is estimated to be between $2000 and $15,000. This range is based upon the costs for the equipment and rainwater storage units that can be potentially used, which will be decided upon by the stakeholders during the meetings discussed above.


4

Timeline | 23/01/2013

TIMELINE Phase One November Consult with potential stakeholders December Examine costs for proposal

Finish concept proposal and send by end of December Have green space survey for student body finished and ready to initiate 1st week back in January

Phase Two

January Confirm and expand stakeholders. BCIT Centre for Architectural Ecology inspection (Maureen Connelly) BCIT Centre for Architectural Ecology report Consultation with: Elizabeth Elle (SFU department of Biological Sciences, pollinator diversity expert), and BCIT Centre for Architectural Ecology Team re: native flora and fauna planning. Update Facilities once stakeholders are confirmed. Initiate, complete and analyse green space survey for stakeholder meeting in February Compile collected materials for stakeholders meeting & create information packaged Re-assessment of project costs given reports and collected information

February Continued project planning and development. Stakeholders meeting planned and participants confirmed. Stakeholder meeting agenda created and agreed upon Dialogue with stakeholders (stakeholders meeting). Minutes report from stakeholders meeting created and distributed

March Tentative construction plans created and finalized. Possible start of construction (ASAP; shooting for end of March / beginning of April)

April Completion of construction (by the end of Semester / April) Project reports, blueprints, and all other collected materials filed with stakeholders

Survey:(Student(Attitudes(Toward(Current(Greenspaces(on(SFU(Burnaby(Campus(Created'by:'Darrien'Morton'&'Jeff'Lemon'Compiled'and'Analyzed'by:'Darrien'Morton'''Attitudes(toward(current(and(future(greenspace(development(

Overall,(72.2%(of(students(felt(there(was(not(enough(greenspace(at(SFU(and(92.3%(stated(they(wanted(to(see(more(greenspaces(on(campus.((

(

Of( students( who( wanted( more( greenspace,( 87.3%( wanted( more( green( roofs,(followed( by( community( gardens( (73.9%),( parks( on( campus( (73.8%),( greenways(

(62.3%),(and(verandas((50%).(

(

54%(of(students(strongly(or(somewhat(agreed(that(greenspaces(are(not(comfortable(to(relax((

(

58.5%( strongly( or( somewhat( agreed( that( current( greenspaces( are( satisfactory( for(spending(time(with(colleagues(and(friends(

(

73.2%( strongly( or( somewhat( agreed( that( campus( greenspaces( require( more(beautification.((

(

When(asked(about(greenspace(meeting(the(students(need(for(shade(43.8%(strongly(or( somewhat( disagreed,( 24%( somewhat( agreed( and( only( 5.7%( strongly( agreed.(

20.5%(felt(neutral.(

(

Generally(current(greenspace(felt(welcoming(during(the(summer(months,(were(safe(to(be(in,(and(were(peaceful(to(study.((

(

From(a(preliminary(analysis(of( the(openOended(question( that(asked( if(greenspaces(are( not( easily( accessible,( it( is( observed( that( from( the( 18.3%( who( strongly( or(

somewhat( agreed,( location( and( seclusion(of( greenspaces(were( the(most( prevalent(

responses.((

(

64.5%( of( students( strongly( or( somewhat( disagreed( that( campus( greenspace( has(adequate(seating.(Only(2.3%(strongly(agreed(and(12.1%(somewhat(agreed.(Of(those(

disagreeing,(81.6%(stated(that(seating(is( inadequate(in(scenic( locations(with(views(

across( the( campus,( 72.4%( stated( around( preOexisting( greenspace( and( 61.3( stated(

inadequate(seating(that(is(built(into(new(greenspaces.(

( (

Attitudes(toward(current(open(space(development(

Almost(50%(of(students(there(was(enough(open(space(on(campus(and(83.4(said(they(would(like(to(see(more(open(spaces(on(campus.((

(

75.9%(of(those(who(wanted(more(open(spaces(stated(they(wanted(open(space(to(be(used(as(social(gathering(areas,(followed(by(greenspace(areas((75.1%),(natural(areas(

(57%),(recreational(areas(48.6%),(and(educational(areas(39%)(

72.2( %( of( students( believed( that( the( design( of( campus( greenspaces( should( be(improved.(

(

Perceptions(of(greenspace(usage(

For(the(usage(of(greenspace,(73.6%(of(students(reported(that(greenspace(should(be(used(as(an(education(space(is(very(important(or(somewhat(important,(while(92.6%(

thought( that( greenspace( should( be( used( as( a( breathing( space( with( 58.9%(

considering( it( very( important.( 88.2%( considered( greenspace( that( is( used( for(

studying(very(or(somewhat(important(and(83.8%(thought(greenspace(that(is(used(as(

a( meeting( space( very( or( somewhat( important.( ( Related( to( the( natural( aspects( of(

greenspace( usage,( greenspace( as( a( growing( (73.6%)( or( wild( (74%)( space,( in(

comparison(to(social(aspects(of(usage,(was(considerably(lower.((

(

93.9%( of( students( though( trees( and( shrubs( were( very( or( somewhat( important,(followed(by(fountains(93.8%),(flowerbed(and(planters((77.8%),(arbors((75.45),(and(

74.2%(of(students(finding(cobblestone(walkways(important,(with(44.7%(stating(they(

are( very( important.( ( 60.2%( of( students( thought( paved( walkways( would( be(

important.(61%(of(students(identifies(drinking(fountain(as(important.(

(

Only(44.2%( thought(benches(were( important(but(32.8%( felt(neutral.(On( the(other(hand,(49.6%(of(students(considered(picnic(tables(to(be(very(unimportant(

(

64.4%(of(students(thought(native(animal(species(are(important((

(

Perceptions(toward(sustainability(and(greenspace((

97.5%( of( students( believed( greenspace( was( important( for( Burnaby( campus(and( 93.4%(of( students( cared(whether( greenspace( on( campus( benefitted( the(natural(environment(of(Burnaby(campus.(

(((

Survey(Analysis((

Campus(greenspace(at(SFU(is(considered(by(students(to(be(a(highly(valuable(asset(and(feature(

of(Burnabys(built(and(natural(environment.(Both(within(the(campus,(and(between((the(campus(

and(natural(environment(of(Burnaby(mountain(The(survey(results( indicate(that(not(only(do(a(

majority(of(the(students(sampled(believe(there(is(not(enough(greenspace(on(campus((72.2%),(

but(almost(unanimously,(students(believe(more(is(needed.(For(those(who(believed(the(campus(

required( more( greenspaces,( 87.3%( indicated( they( would( like( additional( rooftop( gardens.(

Students( identified( rooftop( gardens( as( a( priority( more( so( than( any( other( type( of( campus(

greenspace.( Furthering( and( increasing( the( development( of( greenspace( is( thus( considered( a(

necessity.( When( asked( about( open( space( development( in( general,( without( restricting( it( to(

greenspace( uses( exclusively,( students( still( identified( greenspace( to( be( the( one( of( the( most(

important( type( of( open( space,( falling( shortly( behind( social( gathering( spaces( such( as( public(

plazas.((

(

Based(on(students(attitudes(toward(current(greenspaces,(responses(indicate(that(most(issues(

exist( concerning( the( physical( aspects( and( features( of( green( space( compared( to( the( social(

aspects(and(features.(Knowing(student(attitudes(toward(current(greenspace(may(therefore(help(

inform(future(developments.(Physical(aspects(that(were(found(to(be(considerably(problematic(

were( comfort,( aesthetic( design( of( the( campus( greenspaces,( shade,( accessibility,( and,( in(

particular,(seating.(Seating(is(regarded(inadequate(especially(for(those(areas(with(scenic(views(

of(the(campus.(The(social(conditions(that(aspects(and(features(of(greenspace(promote,(however,(

are(generally(regarded(as(satisfactory(at(meeting(the(needs(for(many(of(the(students(sampled.(

These(needs( include(safety,(a(social(space(for(congregating(and(a(peaceful(space(for(studying.((

During(the(summer(months,(greenspaces(are(generally(thought(of(as(welcoming.(

In(terms(of(what(students(perceived(to(be(important(aspects(and(features(of(greenspace(usage,(

both(social(and(physical(aspects(and(features(were(identified.(As(a(social(space,(greenspace(was(

perceived(to(be(most(important(as(a(breathing(and(studying(space,(possibly(signifying(that(the(

peacefulness(of( greenspace( is( important( to( students.(Though,( greenspace( as( a(meeting( space(

was(also(considered(important.(Campus(greenspaces(for(natural(uses,(such(as(a(growing(or(wild(

space,(were(considered(less(important(than(social(aspects(of(use.((Responses(related(to(natural(

and(social( features(of(greenspace(usage(were(varied(with(plants,(other(vegetation,(walkways,(

fountains,( benches,( drinking( fountains( and( the( presence( of( native( animal( species( being(

considered(important.(On(the(other(hand,(picnic(tables,(rocks(and(boulders,(and(gazebos,(were(

found(to(be(less(important.((

Overall,(these(survey(results(indicate(that(not(only(are(more(greenspaces(deemed(a(necessity(by(

students,( but( the( incorporation( and(maintenance( of( greenspace( furnishings( and( natural( and(

physical( features( require( better( strategic( and( conceptual( planning( in( relation( to( greenspace(

design.(For( future(developments(of( greenspace,( it(must(be(kept( in(mind,(however,( that( these(

spaces( should( cater( to( the( needs( of( students( by( way( of( promoting( a( peaceful,( restful,( yet(

interactive,(environment.((

ITEM # Question DescriptionYes No Maybe/IDKStA SoA N SoD StD IDKVI SI DCare SU VU

1 Overall, do you think there are enough greenspaces on Burnaby campus? 27.8 72.22A Would you like to see more greenspaces on Burnaby campus? 92.3 7.7

What types of greenspaces would you like to see more of on Burnaby campus?2B1 IF YES 2A Parks on campus 73.8 26.22B2 Community gardens 73.9 26.22B3 Rooftop Gardens 87.3 12.72B4 Verandas 50 502B5 Greenways 62.3 37.72B6 Other

2C IF YES 2A text Which area(s) on Burnaby campus do you think requires more greenspace development? (Optional)Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

3A Campus gardens are spacious enough to meet my needs 12.8 38.8 26.4 18.2 3.1 0.83B Campus greenspaces are not comfortable enough to relax 14.3 39.9 14.3 22.1 7.8 1.63C Campus greenspaces are peaceful enough to study 10.5 39.1 21.7 26.7 0 1.9

3DCampus greenspaces are satisfactory enough for spending time with friends and/orcolleagues 15.9 42.6 18.2 17.8 4.7 0.8

3E Campus greenspaces are satisfactory for social gatherings 9.7 36.8 19 26.7 5 2.73F Campus greenspaces require more beautification 33.7 39.5 18.3 4.7 2.7 1.23G Campus greenspaces are noisy 5.1 32.7 31.9 21 8.2 1.23H Campus greenspaces have enough trees to meet my needs for shade 9.3 24 20.5 38.4 5.4 2.33I Campus greenspaces feel unwelcoming during the summer months 2.3 13.1 18.5 30.5 30.1 5.43J Campus greenspaces feel safe to use 36.2 40.9 14 5.8 0.8 2.3

3K1 Campus greenspaces are not easily accessible 2.7 15.6 34.6 30 14 3.13K2 IF AGREE 3K1 text Why do you think campus greenspaces are not accessible3L1 Campus greenspaces have adequate seating 2.3 12.1 19.5 37.7 26.8 1.6

IF DISAGREE 3L1 Please specify where you feel seating is inadequate3L2A Scenic locations with views across campus 81.6 18.43L2B Built into new greenspace 61.3 38.73L3C Built around pre-existing greensaces 72.4 27.63L2D text Other

4 Generally, do you think there are enough urban open spaces on Burnaby campus? 50.2 49.8

5 Would you like to see more urban open spaces on Burnaby campus? 83.4 16.6

Frequencies (%)

What should open space be used for on Burnaby campus? (Choose 3)6A Recreational areas 48.6 51.46B Social gathering areas 75.9 24.16C Greenspace areas 75.1 24.96D Educational areas 39 616E Natural areas 57 436F text Other

7 How would you rate the general upkeep and appearance of greenspace on Burnaby campus?

0 13.3 62.9 17.3 0.8 5.6

8A Should the current design of greenspaces on Burnaby campus be further improved? 72.2 5.6 22.2

8B IF YES 8A text How do you think greenspace should be improved? (Optional)

9 Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with greenspace at Burnaby campus currently?

3.2 36.7 36.7 20.2 2.8 0.4

10 text Please complete the following sentence. I would use greenspace on Burnaby campus more ifWhich of the following uses of greenspace do you consider would be important for Burnaby campus?

11A Breathing space - a space to retreat from the bustle of campus buildings 58.9 33.7 5.3 1.6 0.4

11BHealthy space - a space for performing physical activity or other beneficial health-related activities 42.3 37 13 4.9 2.8

11C Meeting space - a space to meet with other students or people 40.7 43.1 13 2.8 0.411D Studying space - a space to study 54.9 33.3 6.1 4.9 0.811E Play space - a space with fun, entertaining and/or creative activities 28.5 41.5 17.5 11 1.6

11FLearning space - a space with activities to gain skills and learn e.g. composting and gardening activities, social or cultural events, environmental or community services and programs etc

40.7 41.1 12.6 4.5 1.2

11G Growing space a space for growing fruits and vegetables 45.1 28.5 13.8 9.3 3.3

11HWild space - a space that requires less human contact and may serve as a habitat for animals or larger trees and bushes 42.3 31.7 12.2 9.8 4.1

11I text Other Which of the following physical structures do you think would be important for greenspace on Burnaby campus?

12A Flowerbeds and planters 34.8 43 14.8 4.9 2.512B Trees and shrubs 61.1 32.8 4.5 1.6 012C Gazebos 29.9 32.8 24.2 8.2 4.912D Arbors (framework that supports climbing plants and provides shade) 28.7 46.7 19.7 3.7 1.212E Picnic tables 35.7 11.5 3.3 49.612F Drinking fountains 34 27 25 10.2 3.712G Ponds 13.9 31.6 28.3 16 10.2

12H Fountains 59.8 34 4.9 1.212I Benches 17.6 26.6 32.8 14.3 8.612J Rocks or boulders 16.8 29 25 20.1 912K Paved walkways 17.2 43 23 11.5 5.312L Cobblestone walkways 44.7 29.5 16.8 6.6 2.512M Native animal species 27.5 36.9 24.6 7.8 3.312N text Other 13 Do you believe that greenspace is NOT important for the Burnaby campus? 2.5 97.5

14 Do you care whether greenspace on campus benefits the natural environment of Burnaby Mountain?

93.4 6.6

15 Would you prefer that greenspace be kept ONLY outside on campus grounds, and NOT inside the campus buildings?

12.8 87.2

16 Do you think that classes which are taught on campus greenspace rather than inside classrooms/lecture halls would be beneficial to your learning?

72.7 27.3

17 Should a portion of the sustainability charges included in your student fees be used for greenspace development on campus?

73.4 26.6

18 If given the chance, would you offer technical or volunteer services toward campus greenspace planning and development?

18.6 38.4 43

19A Do you believe that decisions involving greenspace planning and development on Burnaby campus should include students?

96.3 3.7

19B IF Y/N 19A text Why do you believe decisions should or should not involve students?

COST%ESTIMATES%!

RAINWATER%MANAGEMENT:%COST%ESTIMATES%%RAINWATER%STORAGE%TANK%OPTIONS%550!USG!Water!Tank!!

$439.65!

1,000!USG!Water!Tank!!

$775.00!

2,500!USG!Water!Tank!!!

$1,311.11!

5,!000!USG!Water!Tank!! $3,689.23!!!

RAIN%HARVESTING%FILTER%OPTIONS%Leaf!Beater!=!fits!4"!Round!Downspout!!

$41.27!

4"!Leaf!Eater!Ultra! $76.54!

!FIRST%FLUSH%DIVERTER%OPTIONS%4"!Downspout!First!Flush!Diverter!Kit!=!Assembly!required!!

$47.00!

!

PIPING%4! PVC! materials! cost! on! average! $1! per! foot.! Consultation! will! be! done! in! the! stakeholders!meeting! to! address! the! location! of! the! diversion! and! the! length! of! PVC! drainage! material!required.!!

$20!=!$500!

Additional!plumbing!materials!such!as!taps,!valves,!and!piping!to!connect!filtration.! $50!=!$500!

!WATER%STORAGE%TANK%PAD%A!pad!maybe!required!to!place!the!water!storage!tank!onto.!The!price!of!this!pad!will!vary!depending!on!material!selected!(gravel,!concrete),!as!well!as!the!diameter!and!weight!of!the!water!storage!tank.!General!estimates!place!the!cost!at!$0!=!$500!

%ROTUNDA%AREA:%COST%ESTIMATES%!SOIL%OPTIONS%%Soil!specification!can!range!depending!on!the!environment.!As!a!pricing!range!can!only!be!given!until!a!specification!has!been!decided!by!BCIT.!Prices! also!will! vary!depending!on!how!many!beds!are! selected!and! for!what!purpose!(green!roof,!bog,!pond).!!Prices!range!from!$10/cubic!m!to!as!high!as!$220/cubic!m!for!specialty!soils.!%Example:!Including!the!use!of!a!soil!blower!one!quote!was!given!at!=!$65/cubic!m)!!Small!Rooftop!Bed!(17.5!sq.!m,!1/3m!deep)!!

$379.20!

Medium!Rooftop!Bed!(35!sq.!m,!1/3m!deep)!!

$758.40!

Large!Rooftop!Bed!(117!sq.!m,!1/3m!deep)! $2,535!

!

SIMFRA1Master No.

QuoteBARR Plastics Inc.

8888 University DriveBurnaby BC V5A 1S6 8888 University Drive

Burnaby BC V5A 1S6

Unit A - 31192 South Fraser Way1

RWQ000603

Simon Fraser University

1/23/13

Purchase Order No. Customer ID Salesperson ID Payment Terms

Quantity Item Number DescriptionUOM Unit Price Ext. Price

Ship To:Bill To:

DatePage


ME NET 30

0/00/00

19,509

Abbotsford BC V2T 6L5 Canada

Phone :(604) 852-8522Fax: (604) 852-8022

Toll free: (800) 665-4499 Business No: 864884135

Phone: (778) 782-3385 Ext. 000Phone:Fax:

(778) 782-3385 Ext. 0000(778) 782-4521 Ext. BOB0

Lead Time4-6 WEEKS

Req Ship Date Shipping Method Shipping Via DRW#Shipping Reference

C$3,689.23 C$3,689.23 EACH 1 40943 5000 USG BLK H20 TANK W/ 2" FTG (141"D)x 86.0"H WEIGHT: 794LBS

C$76.54 C$76.54 EACH 1 RHUL98 4" LEAF EATER ULTRA

C$529.07 C$529.07 EACH 1 60115861 ECOTRONIC 250 1HP BOOSTER PUMP W/ PRESSURE SWITCHDIM: 19.0"L x 11.0"W x 18.0"H WEIGHT: 20LBS

C$500.00 C$500.00 Each 1.00 BUDGET BUDGET FOR PIPE, FITTINGS, HOSE, ETC...

C$4,794.84C$0.00

C$0.00C$0.00

SubtotalMiscGST/HST

FreightTrade DiscountTotal C$5,370.22

Thank you for the opportunity to quote!

Print Name: Signed:

Date:

Terms:2. 50% Deposit with order, 50% balance due on delivery.3. 2% interest charged on over-due accounts.4. All orders must be confirmed by a signed quote and deposit, or a purchase

PURCHASER: I have reviewed and accepted the above sales quote and have checked

order, OAC.

it for accuracy and accept the Termsand Conditions attached.Terms and Conditions are available upon request from the sales manager at 1-800-665-4499

1. Above Prices are FOB our shop, taxes extra unless specified.

5. This quote is valid for 15 days. Returns are subject to min. 25% restocking6. Items will be invoiced on the ready to ship date.

C$575.38

SIMFRA1Master No.

QuoteBARR Plastics Inc.

8888 University DriveBurnaby BC V5A 1S6 8888 University Drive

Burnaby BC V5A 1S6

Unit A - 31192 South Fraser Way1

RWQ000604


1/23/13

Purchase Order No. Customer ID Salesperson ID Payment Terms

Quantity Item Number DescriptionUOM Unit Price Ext. Price

Ship To:Bill To:

DatePage


ME NET 30

0/00/00

19,510

Abbotsford BC V2T 6L5 Canada

Phone :(604) 852-8522Fax: (604) 852-8022

Toll free: (800) 665-4499 Business No: 864884135

Phone: (778) 782-3385 Ext. 000Phone:Fax:

(778) 782-3385 Ext. 0000(778) 782-4521 Ext. BOB0

Lead TimeIN STOCK

Req Ship Date Shipping Method Shipping Via DRW#Shipping Reference

C$1,311.11 C$2,622.22 EACH 2 40867 2500 USG GRN H2O TANK W/ 2" FTGDIM: 95"L x 89.0"H WEIGHT: 339LBS

C$76.54 C$76.54 EACH 1 RHUL98 4" LEAF EATER ULTRA

C$529.07 C$529.07 EACH 1 60115861 ECOTRONIC 250 1HP BOOSTER PUMP W/ PRESSURE SWITCHDIM: 19.0"L x 11.0"W x 18.0"H WEIGHT: 20LBS

C$500.00 C$500.00 Each 1.00 BUDGET BUDGET FOR PIPE, FITTINGS, HOSE, ETC...

C$3,727.83C$0.00

C$0.00C$0.00

SubtotalMiscGST/HST

FreightTrade DiscountTotal C$4,175.17

Thank you for the opportunity to quote!

Print Name: Signed:

Date:

Terms:2. 50% Deposit with order, 50% balance due on delivery.3. 2% interest charged on over-due accounts.4. All orders must be confirmed by a signed quote and deposit, or a purchase

PURCHASER: I have reviewed and accepted the above sales quote and have checked

order, OAC.

it for accuracy and accept the Termsand Conditions attached.Terms and Conditions are available upon request from the sales manager at 1-800-665-4499

1. Above Prices are FOB our shop, taxes extra unless specified.

5. This quote is valid for 15 days. Returns are subject to min. 25% restocking6. Items will be invoiced on the ready to ship date.

C$447.34

Alternative

Roug

hMaterialTotal

#Units

Cost/unit

StorageTank

sSh

ipping

&Inst

allatio

nPu

mps

&Filte

rsFo

unda

tion

Electrical

Piping

&fittin

gs10

00lin

ealfee

tof

pipe

(exclude

slabo

r)1.

All

Rai

nwat

er H

OG

s- a

t 50

gallo

ns c

apac

ity p

er ta

nk- a

ppro

pria

te fo

r sm

all o

r de

mon

stra

tion

area

s. (a

ssum

es w

ith w

all b

rack

et)

$

148,

100.

00

400

299

1196

0016

000

6500

TBD

6000

2. A

mix

of V

odat

anks

(60

0 ga

llons

) and

HO

Gs

(50

gallo

ns) i

n di

scre

te lo

catio

ns a

roun

d th

e si

te $

5

4,34

0.00

34

1100

3740

020

4055

0034

00TB

D60

003.

2 L

arge

cap

acity

tank

s (1

0 -1

2K g

allo

n)- i

ssue

s re

gard

ing

aest

hetic

s, s

hipp

ing

and

inst

alla

tion.

Not

e: w

ater

is h

eavy

$

72,

000.

00

212

000

2400

035

0035

0035

000TB

D60

004.

Dis

tribu

ted

colle

ctio

n an

d st

orag

e sy

stem

- One

for t

he p

erm

acul

ture

/ co

llect

ion

area

and

se

cond

for t

he g

arde

n T

BD

Storageof

20KGa

llons

Abov

earesomevery

prelim

inarybu

dget

numbe

rsfor3

diffe

rent

scen

arios.

Thesedo

numbe

rsareforp

lann

ingpu

rposeon

ly.Ac

tualqu

otewillbe

prov

ided

once

afirm

system

requ

iremen

tsan

dde

signarede

velope

d.Num

bersdo

not

refle

ctlabo

rtoinstalltan

ks,electric

al,fou

ndation,

orpiping

26 M

ay 2

008

ww

w.r

ainw

ater

hog.

com

GLE

NM

ORE

RO

AD

PU

BLIC

SCH

OO

Lra

inw

ater

HO

G c

ase

stud

y09

A to

tal o

f 18

Rai

nwat

er H

OGs

were

use

d by

Gle

nmor

e Pu

blic

Sch

ool t

o wa

ter v

ario

us a

reas

of t

he s

choo

l gr

ound

s. T

he tr

ansp

orta

ble

clas

sroo

ms

have

str

ict c

rite

ria

whic

h do

es n

ot a

llow

any

perm

anen

t con

nect

ion

to th

e si

te, m

eani

ng th

at th

at th

eir d

owns

pout

s ge

nera

lly r

un o

nto

the

surr

ound

ing

grou

nd. T

he p

orta

ble,

lig

htwe

ight

and

reu

sabl

e na

ture

of H

OGs

mea

nt th

at th

ey co

uld

be in

stal

led

dire

ctly

on

the

grou

nd u

nder

th

e cl

assr

oom

s to

colle

ct a

nd r

euse

the

wate

r for

dri

p ir

riga

tion,

with

the

know

ledg

e th

at o

nce

the

clas

s-ro

oms

were

rem

oved

the

HOG

s co

uld

be r

ecom

mis

sion

ed e

lsew

here

with

out l

eavi

ng fo

unda

tions

beh

ind.

For t

he C

otta

ge in

stal

latio

n, th

e na

rrow

pro

file

of H

OGs

mad

e th

em id

eal t

o st

ore

the

low

volu

me

of w

ater

fr

om th

e he

rita

ge b

uild

ing'

s ro

of w

ithou

t com

prom

isin

g ou

tdoo

r pla

y ar

ea. T

he co

ntai

ned

natu

re o

f the

H

OG m

odul

e m

eans

that

it is

saf

e ar

ound

child

ren,

with

no

area

s of

egr

ess

or in

stab

ility

.

Two

vert

ical

ly m

ount

ed H

OGs

supp

ly w

ater

for t

he s

mal

l sid

e ga

rden

.

HOG

mod

ules

bed

ded

into

the

soil

unde

r the

tran

spor

tabl

e cl

assr

oom

s, s

tore

61

8 ga

llons

(234

0 lit

res)

for d

rip

irri

gatio

n of

sur

roun

ding

gro

unds

.

HOG

s ar

e ba

nked

ho

rizo

ntal

ly o

n th

e gr

ound

un

der t

he tr

ansp

orta

ble

clas

sroo

ms,

one

set

of 6

and

on

e se

t of 7

for a

tota

l 618

ga

llons

(234

0 lit

res)

to

prov

ide

wate

r for

gar

den

irri

gatio

n. T

he D

epar

tmen

t of

Edu

catio

n do

es n

ot a

llow

perm

anen

t att

achm

ents

to

the

tran

spor

tabl

es. H

OG is

a

perf

ect s

olut

ion

beca

use

when

the

clas

sroo

ms

are

rem

oved

the

HOG

s ca

n be

de

ploy

ed in

ano

ther

par

t of

the

scho

ol g

roun

ds.

2 H

OGs

mou

nted

ver

tical

ly co

llect

wat

er fo

r sm

all g

arde

n ho

sing

.

3 H

OGs

mou

nted

ver

tical

ly o

n th

e wa

ll of

The

Cot

tage

and

af

ters

choo

l car

e ce

ntre

whi

ch

did

not w

ant t

o lo

se a

ny

outd

oor p

lay

spac

e. H

OGs

are

used

to h

ose

the

adja

cent

ve

geta

ble

patc

h .

19

(5

00m

m)

9

(240

mm

)

71 (1800mm)

47 gallons (180 litre)

18 H

OGs

846 g

alLo

ns

3,240

litr

es

External

Fund

ers

Nam

eof

fund

erGr

antN

ame

Nam

eof

contact

Email/ph

onenu

mbe

rFu

ndinginterest

dead

line

Gran

tingregion

Fund

ingrang

eAd

dress

Link

(ifan

y)Notificatio

nPrev

ious

Gran

tsRe

cipien

tsVa

nCity

Gree

nBu

ilding

Gran

tMoira

Teevan

604.87

7.76

20Minim

izetheim

pact

ofclim

atechan

gean

dim

prove

sustaina

bleland

use

practic

esby

supp

ortin

ggree

nbu

ildinginitiatives

inB.C.

02Ap

r13

British

Columbia.A

portionof

thefund

swill

bede

signa

tedfor p

rojects

taking

placewith

inthe

Lower

Mainlan

d,Fraser

Valley,or

CapitalR

egiona

lDistric

t.Preferen

cewill

begivento

projects

completed

with

inatw

oyear

timefram

e.

Provides

gran

tsof

upto

$50,00

0Gree

nBu

ildingGran

tProg

ram

RealEstate

Foun

datio

nof

British

Columbia57

035

5Bu

rrardStreet

Vancou

ver,B.C.

V6C

2G8

https://www.van

city.com

/MyC

ommun

ity/N

otForProfit/G

rants/G

reen

BuildingG

rant/

June

,201

3.Co

mmun

ityEn

ergy

Association:

Distric

tEne

rgyRe

ady

$45,00

0Lasque

tiCo

mmun

ityAssociation:

Commun

ityRe

newab

leHe

at&Po

wer

Plan

ning

&De

sign

$17,00

0O.U.R.Ecovillage:ZeroMile

Eatery

$30,00

0SaltSprin

gIsland

Land

Bank

Society:Greywater

Reuse

Retrofit

$8,000

VanC

ityCo

mmun

ityProjectG

rant

Miche

llePa

ndh

miche

lle_p

andh

er@vancity

.com

Environm

ent:

Build

ingna

tural

habitatb

yprotectin

gan

drestoringna

tural

habitatsan

deco

system

sincluding

forests,riv

ers,

wetland

sand

bogs.

Encouraging

environm

ental

Ongo

ing

Burnab

y/North

Shore/

Vancou

ver/Richmon

d/Sur

rey/Victoria/Tri

Citie

s/Fraser

Valley

$15,00

0:maxim

umfund

ingfor

projects/program

s$2

,500

:maxim

umfund

ing

forc

onferences,

worksho

ps,and

forums

$1,500

:maxim

umfund

ing

forc

ommun

ityfestivals

Commun

ityInvestmen

tteam,

Region

#:PO

Box21

20StationTerm

inal

Vancou

ver,BC

V6B5R

8

https://www.van

city.com

/MyC

ommun

ity/N

otForProfit/G

rants/C

ommun

ityProjectGrants/

Ongo

ing

Walmart

Evergree

nGran

tsEllenKa

ross

ekaross@

evergree

n.ca

Nativeplan

tinginitiat

01Mar

13Ca

nada

upto

$100

00WalmartEvergree

nGree

nGran

tsC/o

EllenKa

rossA

ssistan

t,na

tiona

lProgram

sCe

ntre

forG

reen

Citie

s,Suite

300,

Evergree

nBrickworks

550Ba

yviewAv

enue

,To

ronto,

ontario

M4w

3X8

http://w

ww.evergreen

.ca/en

/fu

nding/gran

ts/w

almart.sn

22Ap

r13

Broo

ksCo

mmun

ities

inBloo

m

Broo

ks,A

B(Com

mem

orative

Forest)N

orthwestInvasive

Plan

tCou

ncilPrince

George,

BC(Restoratio

nof

Hudson

Bay

Slou

gh&Ca

rrieJane

Grey

Park)

and64

commun

itygrou

psin

2012

TDFEF

Environm

antl

Fund

ing

NA

NA

Environm

ental

educationTree

Plan

ting(native

plan

tspe

cies)

HabitatR

estortion

andstew

ardship

Energy

Conservatio

nan

dRe

newab

leEn

ergy

Installatio

ns

15Jan20

13,15

March

2013

,July20

13,N

ov20

15

Cana

daaverageTD

FEFgran

tis

approxim

ately$2

,500

BUT

noset

minim

um/m

axim

umam

ount

onlineap

plicationon

lyhttp://w

ww.fe

f.td.com/fun

ding

.jsp

April

2013

,Jun

e20

13,O

ct20

13,

Feb20

14

BCHy

dro

NA

NA

NA

Involvecommun

ities

whe

reBC

Hydroha

sfacilities,op

erations

andim

pacts/

supp

ortP

ower

Smartp

rogram

sor

initiatives/

NA

BC$1

000>/

GreenWater Stakeholders Package

Documents

Transcript of GreenWater Stakeholders Package