-
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.
Schools 2009 WEc1: Water Efficient Landscaping
Get LEED Updates
Get LEEDuser's FREE email newsletter, On Your Team, for LEED updates, tips, and events.
17 Comments
Complying with "Reasonable LEED Boundary" and excluding irrigati
I am having difficulty interpreting the paragraph in this credit describing how to deal with athletic fields. It seems to me that it would be acceptable to draw the LEED boundary including irrigated athletic fields (since they serve the school's daily function and are disturbed as a result of construction work) but exclude that irrigation from documentation for this credit. Has anyone taken that approach and had a successful review? Did you also pursue SSc5.2 Maximize Open Space?
Sylvia, as stated in the LEED Reference Guide (page 184), including athletic fields for this credit is optional. But if excluded, they must also be excluded for other credits—which I assume means SSc5.2.
Removal of temporary irrigation systems?
There is a plan to install an irrigation system to help the native planting get "established" for the first year on the site of the project I am working on. The irrigation system is designed to use captured rainwater from large cisterns collecting roof run-off and will offset this captured rainwater with a municipally supplied 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. source when required. If the plan is to disable the valve that allows the municipal water supply after 12 months, would this be sufficient to prove to GBCI that no potable water will be used after the first 12 months?
Sita, I would say that is sufficient, yes. It is in line with other similar solutions I have heard people doing.
Artificial Turf Cooling
We have a project using artificial turf for the football field so it does not require irrigation, but it does need to be rinsed and cooled down. I don't know the specifics of rinsing the turf but does anyone know if the water for rinsing and cooling needs to be included in this credit? Thanks.
Lauren, I would say that's not irrigation—sounds like more of a "process load." Probably not covered in LEED at all, but if it does turn up, it would be under WEc4.
Temp irrigation
if the client intends to digitally "cut-off" irrigation for native seeding after 1 year to establish - while keeping the rest of the irrigation system in tact - is this enough? Initial comments from GBCI reviewer indicates that the temporary system will need to be removed. This seems wasteful and unnecessary - however, I do understand the reluctance to believe that the system will indeed be digitally "cut-off" with a valve. What are your thoughts?
Lisa, when you say "digitally" cut off, are you referring to turning the system off by some programming function, or by turning off an actual valve? I think GBCI would have a valid concern that it can just as easily be turned back on in the future. Some more concrete way of cutting off the system may be warranted, such as removing the sprinkler heads.
Tristan - we agree and have decided to remove the irrigation heads and cap them. Hoping for approval from GBCI.
Thanks,
Lisa
Unnecessary Permanent Irrigation
Our landscape designer has assured us that the native plant design will not require irrigation once established. The owner would prefer to install an irrigation system to use during the plant establishment, and then turn off after one year. Our project has a rainwater harvesting system that would support the irrigation needs. We already qualify for all 4 points: landscape design reduces the baseline "Total Water Applied" by 75%, and the remaining 25% is supplied from the cistern. The advantage we see is that if we can prove that less harvested rainwater will be dedicated to irrigation during the life of the building, more is available to flush toilets, and reduces 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. use.
Will the GBCI allow the installation of a permanent irrigation system that will be turned off after the first year of plant establishment? Or can we justify that the TWA would be reduce by x% after the first year, allowing us to dedicate a greater volume of harvested rainwater to flushing?
Tim, I think your question boils down to: when installing non-permanent irrigation, should it be factored into the water-use modeling for credit compliance?
Although I have never encountered this question before, I think the answer should probably be "no." The design is supposed to be about typical building use, not an anomalous first-year situation.
Anyone else have feedback?
Non-potable water use
We have a project that is utilizing run-off water from snow-melt from a local irrigation ditch for the irrigation of its ballfields and lawn. This water is not treated in any way, but it is conveyed by a local system of irrigation ditches. Would this qualify as "non-potable" water for Option 2? I realize we still need to save 50%.
Sonrisa, there was a discussion about a related irrigation ditch topic on our NC WEc1 forum. I think you'll find some perspective on this question there.
http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/WEc1#comment-7833
landscaping - none added - credit applicable?
No new landscaping, turf, or irrigation are planned for this project - can this credit be pursued in this case?
thanks.
Rachel, you do need landscaping to be eligible for the credit. When you say no "new," do you mean there was some to begin with? It has to be at least 5% of the site area—something we discuss above under the Checklists tab.
Part of the idea here is to not incentivize projects to earn the credit by paving over everything or installing artificial turf, ec.
thank you for your response - yes, it is an existing site/building that we are doing a gut renovation and addition for. so there are existing trees and grass, which are to remain (some of the grass will be replaced). the existing trees are at least 5% of the site area. If we maintain/restore existing, are we compliant?
If that landscaping is wihin your LEED boundary, and if you don't use permanent irrigation systems on it (or if the irrigation systems meet the credit thresholds), then yes, you'd be compliant.
However, you mention turf grass. Turf grass is considered landscaping that requires permanent irrigation in most climates—which would not earn you the credit. So you may need to dig a little deeper—I recommend reviewing our guidance above under the Checklists and Doc Toolkit tabs.
Please register to use the forum.