-
Can be either simple or complex—it's up to you
You can earn this credit simply by eliminating turf grass, planting native and adaptive species, and not installing an irrigation system. If those measures go too far for your project, you can still achieve the credit as long as you have some flexibility with plant species selection, and irrigation system design and controls. You may need a landscape designer to identify local or adaptive plant species that require little irrigation, to design water-efficient irrigation systems, to address the potential use of non-potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities...
Step-by-step credit help
Got the gist of the LEED credit but not sure how to actually achieve it? LEEDuser gives step-by-step help. Members get:
- Checklists covering all the key action steps you'll need to earn the credit.
- Hot tips to give you shortcuts and avoid pitfalls.
- Cost tips to assess what a credit will actually cost, and how to make it affordable.
- Ideas for going beyond LEED with best practices.
- All checklists organized by project phase.
- On-the-fly suggestions on useful items from the Documentation Toolkit, Resources, and Credit Language.
-
Credit language straight from USGBC
Need to check up on the exact LEED credit language from the LEED Rating System on the fly? LEEDuser includes the verbatim language. Members get:
- Easy access to the official LEED credit language with just a couple of clicks.
- On the jobsite without your bulky LEED Reference Guide? Check up on the credit language details here.
- Credit language content is used by permission of the U.S. Green Building Council.
Your credit-by-credit reference library
Why waste time chasing down referenced standards and supporting resources when LEEDuser links you directly to the ones you need? LEEDuser has gathered all the best tools out there and organized them by credit for easy reference. Members get links to:
- Organizations that can give information or help on a credit.
- Standards or studies that are key reference points for credits and prerequisites.
- Articles that help explain important topics.
- Key documents or references for credit inputs.
- Software tools you can use to run calculations or simulations.
Documentation Toolkit
In the end, LEED is all about documentation. LEEDuser’s Documentation Toolkit saves you time and helps you avoid mistakes with:
- Calculators to help assess credit compliance.
- Tracking spreadsheets for materials purchases.
- Spreadsheets and forms to give to subs and other team members.
- Guidance documents on arcane LEED issues.
- Sample templates to help guide your narratives and LEED Online submissions.
- Examples of actual submissions from certified LEED projects.
166 Comments
Partially irrigated site
We have a project that is required by convenants to put irrigation on the front and side of the building that faces the street, but not the rest. So, of course, we will only be installing irrigation only in those areas. The landscape plan includes a native species grass mix for some of the site and mixed trees/shrubs/groundcover for the rest of the site. My question is about how to fill out the calculation tables. I think it makes sense to put all of the landscaping (irrigated and non-irrigated) in both the baseline case and design case. For the baseline case, we would show the whole site being irrigated and for the design case, we would show the decision to eliminate the irrigation on certain portions of the site. The landscape designer/installer disagrees. He said that based on his experience with another project, we should only be including the areas to be irrigated in both the baseline and design case. This doesn't seem right to me being that all of the landscaped areas (irrigated or not) are within the LEED project boundary. So, who's right? Any ideas?
IE for manual irrigation
¿what is the IE for manual irrigation? I will use no potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. for this, I will apreciate your response cause asked about this once and did not got an answer, thank you very much
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think iE for manual irrigation is relevant if it's nonpotable waterNonpotable water: does not meet EPA's drinking water quality standards and is not approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction. Water that is unsafe or unpalatable to drink because it contains pollutants, contaminants, minerals, or infective agents. use—IE is only relevant under Option 1, reducing potable water use.
I understand, but im filling out the credit´s table in leed online and I have to put something though so :
Sprinkler is .625
Drip .90
and manual irrigation will be? less than .625 of course, .20 will be ok ?
Thank you very much Tristan !!
I forgot to mention im under option 1 , in wich the landscape and irrigation system have been designed to reduce irrigation water consumption and water will be non potable, so I have to fill out the IE
We have the same doubt. If the project uses non potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. sufficient to meet 100% of irrigation demand, but does not install an irrigation system, this project can pursue both WEc 1.1 and 1.2? Is this case we should consider sprinkler in base line and design case?
Dario & Wagner, what have you decided for the irrigation efficiency for the manual irrigation? Our project is using potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. and the efficiency coefficient matters.
Thanks!
Maria , I put an efficiency of .3 , not sure though but thats what i decided to do for now, manual irrigation its not efficient so I put a .3 less than sprinkler or driping.
Thanks Dario! Would be curious to see whether GBCI comments on that.
Maria, we used sprinkler in both baseline and designs case. I now that it´s not true, because manual irrigation have less efficiency than automatic irrigation. But we are considering the same way as is assumed in EAp2, if we do not consider the benefit of the irrigation system, you can consider the same in design and the baseline.
Evapotranspiration data worldwide
The new guidance for international projects also includes a resource for evapotranspiration data worldwide. Here is the link http://bit.ly/sp275F
Also find the guideline for international projects here. http://bit.ly/tYhrtV
As a qualifying note it seems that this software only exists for windows, so if we are Mac users we're out of luck!
Irrigation efficiency of manual irrigation
The project we are working on has very small green area and the investor is not planing to install irrigation system, but will have the vegetation manually irrigated with potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. and through hose and valves. Has anyone had the same experience? What irrigation efficiency coefficient have you used for the calculations?
Thanks in advance!
You will have a hard time getting any points here. First you will need to meet the minimum of 5% garden space and planters based on building site area. Than you will need to reduced your water consumption in total and/or potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems..
I'm not sure about the efficiency of the hose. Hopefully some other user can share what they have been using.
Landscaping Coefficient
Hej, my project located in Sweden has trouble whit determine the landscape coefficient (KLThe landscape coefficient (KL) is a constant used to calculate the evapotranspiration rate. It takes into account the species factor, density factor, and microclimate factor of the area.). Or actually we don’t know how to do it.
In the reference guide chapter EWc1 the following is written:
The landscape coefficient (KL) indicates the volume of water lost via evapotranspiration and varies with the plant species, microclimate, and planting density. The formula for determining the landscape coefficient is given in Equation 3.
Further on in the reference guide Equation 3 gives the "Design Case TWA (gal)" so that cannot be the correct one.
How have you done on other projects?
/Veronika
Okej, found the correct calculation?!
Equation 1
KLThe landscape coefficient (KL) is a constant used to calculate the evapotranspiration rate. It takes into account the species factor, density factor, and microclimate factor of the area. = ks x kd x kmc
Alternative Sources of Water
Can the following types of water, if stored in a rainwater cistern, contribute to credit compliance?
- Water from building foundations (dewatering) pumped into the rainwater cistern,
- AC condensate drained into the rainwater cistern.
If yes, can you also share your experiences on how you have approached the volume estimation for these sources?
Check the addendum (2/2/2011) "Additionally the credit can be met when landscape irrigation is provided by raw water (excluding ... ground water) that would otherwise be treated specifically for non-potable uses...." So it's a yes on the AC condensate, the water from your foundation is questionable. I believe I read somewhere that that's ok too. But I can't recall where.
baseline for northern countries
We have a project in Scandinavia, where there are no local authority requirements about landscaping. The site is industrial in a rural location. The typical landscape planting is pretty much to leave things in their natural state (a mixture of glassland, shrubs and trees) and perhaps add a few planters and flower boxes for decoration. We plan to introduce some turf, to be irrigated entirely by captured rainwater (by hand, no hard-wired irrigation system). I understand that we can get 2 credits for the rainwater irrigation, but I am at a loss on how we could improve the landscaping to get 4 credits. If we elminate the turf and have natural, unirrigated meadow, we would have to exclude that area, since we'd be returning the area into its natural state. I'm referring to a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide from 2004 and 2007 which states that
"A project may not include planted areas in the irrigation calculations if these areas are intended to be left in a natural state, and not therefore require irrigation. Only landscaped areas can be included in the calculations for this project."
The only other aspect that one can adjust is the irrigation efficiency, but the Ref Guide does not say anything about the efficiency of conventional hand irrigation on an as-needed basis.
Anybody have any experience with this?
You can include area, which are return to its natural state, but not areas, which remain in its natural state. (Check the addendum of the reference guide).
I'm not sure about the "hand irrigation". My guess is that your planters would be irrigated that way in baseline and design case. So no improvement there. The amount of water will depend on your rain fall and the plants need of water, while this kind of irrigation probably wastes a lot of water. I hope that helps at all. Also you might want to check the new Guide for international projects with alternative compliance paths also for WE c1. It's very new and I haven't read it yet. But maybe it will help. http://bit.ly/tTjUr5
irrigation from onsite pond
An irriation pump was installed that supplied the need water for irrigation for the onsite pond. We sumitted this was a non potable irrigation for 4 points. The reviewer is telling me we can't use the local pond as irrigation. If the rainwater that is captured in the pond allow for the amount of irrigation that is required will that meet the credit. Any ideas?
It would only be ok, if the ponds is designed solely for the purpose of stormwater retention or detention. You can find that in more detail in the LEED reference guide addendum (2/2/2011).
100% Non Potable water reduction
Can Option 1 and Option 2 both be used to achieve compliance? I have areas where I am irrigating using rainwater. Other landscape areas only need temporary irrigation until they are established. In this case, does the temporary irrigation have to be done with non-potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. as well or can potable water be used until 1 year later when the plants are established and do not require irrigation after that.
Thanks alot!
I don;t see why not. as long as you reduced the total irrigation water consumption by 50% and the potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. consumption by 100% you should be fine. I would think that you can still use potable water for plant establishment for up to 18 months (see addendum to reference guide), but I haven't had that case before. You might want to check the LEED interpretations on the USGBC's website.
100% Municipal Non-Potable Water
Our project will irrigate with a drip irrigationDrip irrigation delivers water at low pressure through buried mains and submains. From the submains, water is distributed to the soil through a network of perforated tubes or emitters. Drip irrigation is a high-efficiency type of microirrigation. system using 100% municipally supplied non-potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems.. The way I am reading this credit, we cannot get any points for using non-potable water if we are using irrigation and it cannot meet the 50% reduction threshold. Due to turf grass areas, we cannot comply.
Since the intent of the credit is reducing potable water use, not reducing water use overall, why do we have to show irrigation efficiency to achieve any points at all despite our 100% potable water use reduction?
you should be able to get 2 points for option 1 since the water, which you are using seems to be "water treated and conveyed by a public agency specifically for nonpotable uses". To get 4 points however you will have to do 50% less water and 100% less potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems..
Hi Susann,
I think I should get 2 pts for the non-potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. also, but I don't read the credit that way. To pursue Option 2 and use non-potable water, I have to explicitly meet Option 1 first. Hence my confusion.
Michelle,
The footnote in the reference guide and more specifically the addendum (they revised the wording a little bit) states the following:"If the percent reduction of potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. is 100% AND the percent reduction of total water is equal to or greater than 50%, then option 2 is earned, for a total of 4 points."
Susann,
Thanks for the clarification. Our irrigation system does not reduce total water use 50% over a conventional system. It simply uses 100% non-potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems.. When "total water reduction" was not the intent of the credit, I did not understand our inability to achieve at least 2 of the possible 4 pts. I'll check the addenda more closely. I guess I did not realize you could change the intent of a credit through that mechanism. Thanks.
Michelle, you scenario sounds like you can get 2 points. Option 1 requires the reduction of potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. by 50%. You are using non-potable water for all your irrigation. As long as the non-potable water is in line with the restrictions of LEED e.g. no ground water, streams, ect.. Check is that's the water you are using: "water treated and conveyed by a public agency specifically for nonpotable uses".
Furthermore the credit language for option 1 says any combination of the listed items. You don't have to be 50% more efficient just with your irrigation system.
I hope that helps you sort this out.
LEED Project Boundary, Existing Irrigation, and Crane Placement
We have a project on an existing campus which requires that two large cranes sit next to the project on an adjacent turf area. We do not plan to do any improvements on this turf area and plan to restore it to its "before crane" state as it is not technically part of the project. BUT because of Min. Project Requirement #3 regarding the LEED Project Boundary and the statement that any land disturbed in anyway for the construction of the project MUST be inside the LEED boundary, we now have to include this turf area under the cranes as part of our LEED boundary and include it in the WE Credit 1 calcs. This is too bad b/c we are not irrigating any of the plantings in our actual project.
Because this is worth 4 points to us, I just have to ask the experts--is our thinking correct? The USGBC would like us to include the turf area under the cranes? Thank you!
This comes down to do you own this land also? According to the supplementary guidelines for the MPRs you can excluded a supporting area, if you don't own that land. Otherwise it's considered gerrymandering. But even if you exclude it from the LEED project boundary you probably still have to follow the requirements of SS P1.
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6473 page 22 and following
Thanks very much, Susann--yes, we have moved ahead and included it. We agree with your comments and want to avoid any gerrymandering. I appreciate your input!
Landscape irrigation baseline in California
With the new state wide green building code and local municipal requirements for landscape irrigation, how is a baseline developed when regional requirements now approach what was a 50% reduction?
Good questions and I can only answer it based on what the USGBC is saying in regards to comparability of the LEED standard internationally. Basically the goal is to compare one building in China vs one in New York City. With that being said I think you will use the common practice in the US as your baseline even if you are suppose to be 50% below baseline in California.
Also because if I would start with another baseline in a project for instance in Europe, where stormwater retention and infiltration is required, turf usually does not get irrigated and insulation values of standard window are so high, that they are considered highly efficiency here in the US, you will end up having non-comparable point ratings for buildings based on the country, state or city, which they are located.
MicroClimate Factor (Kmc) for Baseline and Design
Hi All,
So I know that the MicroClimate FactorMicroclimate factor (kmc) is a constant used in calculating the landscape coefficient. It adjusts the evapotranspiration rate to reflect the climate of the immediate area. (Kmc) must be the same for the Baseline and the Design, but what if the Landscape types in the Baseline and the Design are not the same at all. .
For instance, I am working on a project, in which the landscape scheme will consist of trees and shrubs. Traditionally (i.e.Baseline) the landscape in the region consists of 1) mixed Trees, shrubs & ground cover and 2) Turf grass, both of which do not/cannot have the same Kmc as Trees and Shrubs.
Did any of you experience this issue ? In your opinion, what should be done ?
Thanks,
George, you only have to use the same Micro Climate Factor (Kmc) for the same kind of landscape in both cases. So if you have 1.2 for turf grass, you will have to use that factor for turf grass in design and Turf grass in baseline case. If you have turf in the baseline case and tress and shurbs (1.3) in design case, you will only have to make sure you use the same factor for turf (i.e. 1.2) in baseline and design, and the use the same factor for trees & shrubs (i.e 1.3) in the design case and in the baseline case if you have any such areas in the baseline case too.
Irrigation during drought conditions
Our project has limited turf areas that will require irrigation. We have a small irrigation system supplied by a rainwater cistern sized to provide required volume per LEED requirements. However, under drought conditions, the owner would like to be able to add potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. to the cistern if necessary. I have recommended a hose bibb intake for such conditions as LEED does not consider a hose bibb part of a permanent system. However, the owner has asked if we could instead install an emergency valve to connect to potable water supply to fill the cistern only under drought conditions. My gut is to stick with the hose bibb. Thoughts?
The footnote for option 2 gives you the possibility to by pass the additional requirements. So if you are reducing the potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. by 100% compared to midsummer baseline case and your total water consumption by 50% than you earned this credit. So as long as your rainwater cistern is large enough and you have enough rainwater to meet the 100% reduction per baseline, you should be fine. I think your will be able to have the backup connection for long droughts to your regular system. But I would check the CIRs to be sure.
Thought judging from the intent of the credit it makes more sense to allow the use of your irrigation system, which is probably better than a hose and wastes less water.
Permeable or Mulched Paths in Calculations
How would permeable or mulched paths be shown in the LEED Online form calculations? Would they still be considered landscaping, and not irrigated, and left in the calculations? If some of the irrigated landscaping square footage shown in our Baseline Case is converted to non-irrigated permeable or mulched walking paths, would that square footage then help our Design Case?
The Addenda from July 2010 clarifies thais a little better:" Any area that is being improved upon (for examplesite area that is being restored to its natural state) must be included in the landscape areaThe landscape area is the total site area less the building footprint, paved surfaces, water bodies, and patios.." So yes include it in the Design case as now permebale or mulched with no water needed and in the baseline case as , what ever it was before. I hope that helps.
Also If you have paved area, then they won't be considered landscape areaThe landscape area is the total site area less the building footprint, paved surfaces, water bodies, and patios.. See also the new definition per Addenda July 2010: total site area less building footprintBuilding footprint is the area on a project site used by the building structure, defined by the perimeter of the building plan. Parking lots, parking garages, landscapes, and other nonbuilding facilities are not included in the building footprint., paved surfaces, water bodies, areas being left in a natural state and patios
Baseline IE
Are there any circumstances under which the baseline IE can or should be lower than the default values? For instance, for a sprinker, the default IE is 0.625, but the landscape engineer has changed this value to 0.4.
If you're changing the IE numbers in your favor, then I would tread carefully, and have a good reason for doing so. It's theoretically possible but what is the rationale?
If you demonstrate that your system should be classified as something other than the generic "sprinker" (e.g., rotary heads), and you have manufacturer data to prove it, then you should be ok. Our landscape/irrigation consultant usually does some complicated calculations involving wind and leaf interception adjustments, and distribution uniformity.
By the way, an IE of 0.4 is actually LESS efficient than 0.625. If that is correct, you might want to reconsider your choice of sprinkler heads.
Non Potable Municiply Provided Well Water
There is municiply provided water available, called raw water which, as per the standard has less than 5,000 mg/l of Total Disolved Solids. The problem is that this is well water (but drawn on a municiple scale, not project scale). The EPA standard as well as the standard applicable to our project requires less than 500 mg/l TDS as well as a number of other limits. Potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. is also provided by the municpality but has undergone desalination or other treatment to reach this level of purity.
Reading through the reference guide seems to contradict itself. The Intent mentions potable water, surface water and subsurface water use reduction but the requirements only mention potable water reduction. And the definition of potable water states that it meets EPA or municipality limits.
Our municipaly provided water is well water but not potable water. As far as I can tell, this specific situation has not been addressed by LEED. Any help is appreciated as we would like to benefit from using this raw water for irrigation and waste (flushing of toilets).
We have had two projects certified that faced the challenge of getting city wells that were "non-potable" accepted by LEED as suitable for irrigation. We failed both times and the reviews said that if the wells were truly "non-potable" they should have purple faucets, be publicly marked as "not suitable for drinking" and that we prove that they are inspected and tested regularly by EPA. Since both were public projects and the wells on public land, we knew that was probably never going to be the case because of the liability if someone did drink out of the spicket.
The project I'm working on is using non-potable well water for irrigation. We would like to benefit from this credit in our certification. From the post above I understood that the well water would have to be clearly marked as non-potable, what we can definitely do, as the well is on site. It has been tested and failed the test for drinking water for a number of chemicals exceeded the allowed levels. What else would I need to support our claim of the credit? Thank you.
I would be careful here. The reference guide clearly states that using groundwater (well water ) doesn't not meet the intent of the credit to reduce potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. use for irrigation if it's just installed for irrigation purposes. (see page 183) Also the last sentence got changed with the addenda in February 2011.:"Additionally the credit can be met when landscape irrigation is provided by raw water (excluding .... ground water) that would otherwise be treated specifically for non-potable uses. Only ponds designed solely for the purpose of storm water retention or detention can be used for this credit." Depending on the registration date of your projects you might not have to comply with this.
But in the broad view of things using well water is not helping the natural water circulation. A storm water reuse system is.
Unirrigated areas in Option 1
Hello,
One project is working to achieve this credit via Option 1 (50% reduction in potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. use). Through a variety of common methods, we have reduced our irrigation water use. Additionally, areas which would normally be planted with lawn are now planted with native, no-water, plants. Between these two strategies, we were able to achieve the 50% threshold.
Last week we had a clarification request from our project review team which stated "Please revise the Credit Form to include only the irrigated areas included in the baseline and design cases". From my reading of this, they do not view planting native species to avoid irrigation as a valid method of achieving this credit.
As we used a combo of water-efficient irrigation and native non-water plants to achieve our 50% threshold, I am hoping that I am misreading their request and we will be able to include our non-irrigated plated areas.
Am I reading too much into this?
Eamon, I agree with you that you shoul be able to include non-irrigated planted areas.
The reviewer may be referring to planted areas included in the baseline case that you have replaced with non-planted areas in the design case. That is not an acceptable strategy for the credit.
Thanks Tristan, it is always good to get a double-check. We have not changed the softscape with hardscape at all. Maybe it was just a poor wording choice on their part.
We have a similar area on our project that is landscaped but not irrigated. The irrigated areas have a mix of system types, so when calculating IE and CE we need to do a weighted average. Any thoughts on how one should incorporate the unirrigated area into these calculations? Thanks.
Permanent irrigation for lawn?
A portion of our vegetated area will be lawn. No permanent irrigation system will be installed, but it'll be watered at times depending on weather conditions. I recall hearing that you can't claim to have lawn that's not permanently irrigated... this doesn't make sense to me, but I figured I'd ask. Thanks in advance for the responses.
Maura, if you plan to have a lawn, and irrigate it, that's fine—but you have to document this credit via Option 1.
Will Seed Qualify?
Our project is not providing an irrigation system. We are wondering if anyone has experience with using native-drought resistant seeding with temporary irrigation as opposed to plantings as a means to satisfy the credit requirements. I would also provide a narrative with all the particulars about the seed, soil preparation, mulch etc. Any opinions would be helpful as well. Thank you.
Cynthia, your question seems to be more about the method of plant "installation" used rather than the design of the landscape. LEED is focused on your landscape design and how much water you use. Whether you get there through seeding or planting of live plants, I don't think it affects your LEED compliance. Does that make sense?
Use of Water frm Retention Pond (collects Storm Water) 4 Irrigat
In our project we have used buffalow grass (which doesn't require Irrigation) as ground cover for most of the area. However there two areas using Turf Grass on ground and Roof Top. There are no permanent Irrigation system installed. The project ownere dug a man made retention pond (just outside LEED boundary) to collect storm water. The landscape contractor proposes to use the water (Harvested from Rain) from this pond to irrigate the Turf Grass by fetching the water in a tanker and manually spraying through hose and valve.
Will ot qualify to claim WEc1 credit for 100% reduction in potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. use and get 4 points?
Yes, this should qualify. You'll need to document it according to the LEED Online requirements to make sure everything fits together, of course.
Lanscape Architect-Required Signatory?
Is it really necessary to have a Landscape Architect "sign-off" on this credit? The Architect for our project did the planting plan and used plants recommended by a horticulturist that are indigenous to the area. Does anyone have experience with review comments on this?
Cynthia, my understanding is that you have to have the person on the project with the role of the landscape architect sign off—not necessarily someone who practices as a landscape architect.
Reference ET rates
Does anyone have a good resource for locting reference ETEvapotranspiration (ET) is the loss of water by evaporation from the soil and by transpiration from plants. It is expressed in millimeters per unit of time. rates for all regions in US? the rain bird resource that is listed on this site and in LEED reference guide no longer exists from what i can tell. and the only other resource listed is for TX. Specifically, I am looking for Chicago, but have other projects in other regions as well. Thanks,
Go to the Rain Bird link http://www.rainbird.com/landscape/products/controllers/etmanager.htm. Scroll down and click on tab "Manuals Literature and Utilities." Download and install the ET Manager Scheduler Software. Open the program and click on "ET" in the menu bar, then on "Historical ET" in the drop-down menu. This opens a new window, where you can select your State and region/city. Click on your city, and a bar graph appears with monthly ETo data.
This is the best I've found so far.
Another website for ETo is the EPA WaterSense "Water Budget Data Finder" http://www.epa.gov/watersense/nhspecs/wb_data_finder.html
Just enter your zip code. However, it is a little unclear if the resulting ETo is for peak month or an annual average. If anyone can figure that out, this site is much easier to use than the Rain Bird link above.
Following up on the EPA WaterSense webiste ETo data, I confirmed with the helpline that the displayed ETo is for the Peak Month. The only hitch is if your zip code's peak month is other than July... otherwise this is a very straight-forward, easy-to-use data source.
Irrigation - Baseline case
Hello,
The guidance is not really clear on what to put in the baseline case. It only says that we need to specify typical landscaping practices.
Do we need to document these typical landscaping practices ?
Thanks,
George, LEEDuser (see the Checklists tab above) and the LEED Reference Guide give a number of factors that need to be counted for the baseline case, and how to calculate these. Which of these do you have a question about?
Correct me if I'm wrong. I found it a little confusing too. Based on everything I've seen about this "baseline case", it consists of required trees and shrubs for any local buffer/ streetscape/ forest conservation code requirements, and lawn. If you have no local code requirements for vegetation, your baseline will be all of your vegetated square footage shown as lawn. Then the design case is obviously that same total vegetated square footage, but with a break down of everything you graciously "replaced" the lawn with.
Tristan,
When referring to the baseline, the Guidance states that Ks, Kd and IE must be set to average values, Kmc and ETo should be the same in Design and Baseline, and the scheme should reflect typical practices in the region. What if typical practices in the region consist of shrubs and lawn and my design consist solely of trees:
1) Do I need to document the typical practices in the region ?(i.e. get a written confirmation from a local authority )
2) How can Kmc be the same if the species are different in the baseline and design ? (as per above)
Many thanks,
My question is, if for instance my design consist of drought resistant shrubs and native trees, an
Please register to use the forum.