See all forum discussions about EBOM-2009 WEc3
 Subscribe to new posts about EBOM-2009 WEc3 Post a new question aboutEBOM-2009 WEc3
See LEEDuser’s guidance on EBOM-2009 WEc3»
FAQs about WEc3 :

Can I still use Option 1 if I have metered irrigation water use data but it’s only for a couple of months or not the whole irrigation season?

The site already uses reclaimed water for irrigation provided by the water utility or reuses graywater from the building for irrigation. Can the building still qualify for the credit?

To determine the baseline for Option 1, how can we determine what “conventional” practices are?

What if the building has no irrigation systems?

View answers »

Forum discussion

EBOM-2009 WEc3:Water Efficient Landscaping

Audit reccommendation to turn off zone

We performed a full audit of the irrigation system and some of the findings were to turn off zones that are watering established plants or mulch areas. This creates a lot of savings in real life, but it is not metered so we can't show exactly where the savings are. Can we reflect this in the table, or are the reviewers going to say that a zone not irrigated in the design case must be shown as not irrigated in baseline case. It seems unfortunate that the fake LEED baseline does not reflect reality. should we submit an alternative compliance path?

2
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Profile picture for user danackerstein
Dan Ackerstein
Principal
Ackerstein Sustainability, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
545 thumbs up

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 18:29

My take on this is its an example of a situation where its important not to let the LOL template divert you from describing the situation in the most intuitive and clear manner. I think GBCI agrees that shifting turf grass to xeriscaping, for example, is an irrigation water use savings that should be reflected in this credit even if it technically means you have reduced the irrigated area at hand. Your situation is no different. I would consider taking two steps: 1. In the template, keep your irrigated area consistent between the baseline and design cases, but account for the water used to irrigate that specific zone as 0 (or some diminishingly small number like 0.001 to make the template work). 2. Use the special circumstances box to explain exactly what you've done and how you've done it. Make it transparent to the reviewer so they can follow your logic and the template work-around. That way, even if they prefer you document your savings in a different manner, they will understand your intent and achievements fully. Hope that helps, Dan

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.