Design/Build Irrigation Bid Request: Provide a fully functional underground irrigation system to provide 100% coverage for all landscaped areas. Acceptable manufacturers: Hunter, Rain Bird, and Toro.
Design/Build Bid Submitted:
1 - Controller = $2,000
20 - Zones = $20,000
200 - Sprinklers = $20,000
Total = $42,000
Above is a common irrigation design/build request and bid submittal. Sometimes an engineering or architecture firm may include a couple of details they were able to find online. Sometimes the bidding company may include a few manufacturer cutsheets. However, this is what is what is typically accepted.
So what is wrong with this? If this was a true design/build, where is the design? Could you imagine this being acceptable:
Design/Build Bid Request Sample: Provide an aesthetically pleasing landscaped area. Acceptable suppliers: ….
Design/Build Bid Submitted:
70 - Retaining Wall Blocks = $2,000
10,000 square feet - turf = $20,000
20 - Trees = $9,000
40 - Shrubs = $9,000
80 - Ground Cover Plants = $2,000
Total = $42,000
The above samples are not meant to take a swipe at the design/build industry. In some situations, it may be the best solution for the project. But, the organization that is overseeing the project should not forget the design aspect. A complete design should be required, and the design should be reviewed by someone familiar with irrigation systems. If the construction manager is not familiar with irrigation systems, the general contractor should consider talking with an irrigation consultant. Possibly contracting with the consultant to review the submitted plans and providing some unbiased feedback.
Many projects in our area are completed based on similar bids and requirements as the above sample. The irrigation contractor was able to walk away with a pay check. The general contractor signed off because they saw water flying. Unfortunately, due to inefficiencies with the installed irrigation system, it did more harm than good for the landscape! The end result is usually an irrigation system that has a higher than normal cost of operation, maintenance, and an over/under watered landscape.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
No Need for Irrigation in Pennsylvania, We Can Just Handwater
It is now mid July, and I think it is safe to say that this is the hottest and driest summer Central Pennsylvania has experienced in a few years. Over the past couple of months I have heard a lot of comments about the brown and crunchy lawns around the area. Here are my two favorites:
We do not need irrigation in Pennsylvania. Well yes and no. Pennsylvania is not Arizona. We do not need irrigation to grow grass, however we typically do not receive enough rainfall to sustain healthy turf throughout the summer. I observe many businesses and homeowners treating their lawns with fertilizers and pesticides. A healthy lawn is a lawn that has deep roots and dense coverage. A healthy lawn is accomplished with proper amounts of water and nutrients throughout the growing season. When both are provided at proper levels, the inputs of both are minimized. This means that less fertilizer is needed if the lawn receives enough water and less water is needed if the lawn receives the proper amount of nutrients. A denser lawn suppresses weeds. I am sure you can see where this discussion is heading!
By hand watering I am reducing my water use. A well designed, installed, and maintained irrigation system should distribute a uniform amount of water over the irrigated area. It should do this only when the area requires water, right before one would see signs of water stress. Hand watering in our area is usually accomplished by placing some sort of sprinkler in the lawn and running it until you remember that it is on, or you have finished talking to your neighbor or coworker. It typically waters all types of areas like sidewalks, roads, houses... in addition to the lawn. One usually begins the cycle of hand watering after the lawn becomes brown. The first problem with this method is the uneven, untimed, uncalculated amount of water being provided to the lawn, or the sidewalk. The second problem with this method is not watering the lawn until it goes brown, or what is referred to as dormancy. Once turf goes into dormancy one has to provide it with enough water to convince it that it is safe to start growing again. This requires a lot more water than it takes to sustain growth.
So does this mean that everyone in Pennsylvania should have an irrigation system? The answer is no. Many people are happy with the way lawns grow in Pennsylvania. My father does not have an irrigation system. He does not understand why you would water your lawn resulting in the need to mow in July and August. However, if you are a business or homeowner that spends money to treat their lawn four times a year, or have extra hoses and a couple of sprinklers that you picked-up at your local hardware store, you may want to reconsider your practices.
We do not need irrigation in Pennsylvania. Well yes and no. Pennsylvania is not Arizona. We do not need irrigation to grow grass, however we typically do not receive enough rainfall to sustain healthy turf throughout the summer. I observe many businesses and homeowners treating their lawns with fertilizers and pesticides. A healthy lawn is a lawn that has deep roots and dense coverage. A healthy lawn is accomplished with proper amounts of water and nutrients throughout the growing season. When both are provided at proper levels, the inputs of both are minimized. This means that less fertilizer is needed if the lawn receives enough water and less water is needed if the lawn receives the proper amount of nutrients. A denser lawn suppresses weeds. I am sure you can see where this discussion is heading!
By hand watering I am reducing my water use. A well designed, installed, and maintained irrigation system should distribute a uniform amount of water over the irrigated area. It should do this only when the area requires water, right before one would see signs of water stress. Hand watering in our area is usually accomplished by placing some sort of sprinkler in the lawn and running it until you remember that it is on, or you have finished talking to your neighbor or coworker. It typically waters all types of areas like sidewalks, roads, houses... in addition to the lawn. One usually begins the cycle of hand watering after the lawn becomes brown. The first problem with this method is the uneven, untimed, uncalculated amount of water being provided to the lawn, or the sidewalk. The second problem with this method is not watering the lawn until it goes brown, or what is referred to as dormancy. Once turf goes into dormancy one has to provide it with enough water to convince it that it is safe to start growing again. This requires a lot more water than it takes to sustain growth.
So does this mean that everyone in Pennsylvania should have an irrigation system? The answer is no. Many people are happy with the way lawns grow in Pennsylvania. My father does not have an irrigation system. He does not understand why you would water your lawn resulting in the need to mow in July and August. However, if you are a business or homeowner that spends money to treat their lawn four times a year, or have extra hoses and a couple of sprinklers that you picked-up at your local hardware store, you may want to reconsider your practices.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
LEED I: Water Use Reductions
LEED was originally developed with noble intentions. Over the years a few weaknesses or holes have been exposed. However, it has caused many engineers and architects to stop and think about how their decisions or recommendations affect the environment. For this reason, you may say that it has been a success. It is a work in progress, so I think we can all see that its heart is in the right place, and where weaknesses have been exposed, corrections have been made. Looking at it from an irrigation viewpoint, there is so much to discuss. However, discussing everything in one post would not be very productive unless I am using this blog to help those of you with insomnia. What I feel would be most beneficial would be to provide personal experiences on projects where LEED accomplished its intentions, or how it fell short, in multiple postings.
The most common LEED points earned in our area for irrigation are the 2 points awarded for a 50% reduction in landscape water use when compared to a baseline system. The 50% reduction is accomplished through two common practices.
The first is using technology that our industry typically refers to as “smart” or “high efficiency.” This is a combination of ET based controllers, soil moisture sensors, pressure-regulators, flow sensors, etc. These are technologies that I always recommend, regardless of an owner’s desire to seek LEED accreditation. When properly used, these items typically pay for themselves within a couple of years.
The second method we use to accomplish this 50% reductions is to increase the amount of drip irrigation and decrease the amount of pop-up sprinkler irrigation. Drip irrigation is significantly more efficient than pop-up sprinkler type irrigation. There are methods that help us narrow the gap between the two, but few are recognized by the U.S. Green Building Council. Increasing the percentage of drip irrigation on a project results in more landscaped areas and less turf areas. Drip irrigation can also be used in turf areas, but it is not very common in our area. Established mulched landscaped plantbeds have a lower water requirement then turf.
I recently completed construction documents on a project which is seeking the two points for 50% landscape water reduction. Because of the criteria set by the U.S. Green Building Council, the landscape architect reduced the amount of turf that they would have typically used so that we could utilize more drip irrigation. As a result of the reduced percentage of turf, we were able to reduce the water requirement of the landscape by more than 50% and apply for two points towards LEED Certification.
The most common LEED points earned in our area for irrigation are the 2 points awarded for a 50% reduction in landscape water use when compared to a baseline system. The 50% reduction is accomplished through two common practices.
The first is using technology that our industry typically refers to as “smart” or “high efficiency.” This is a combination of ET based controllers, soil moisture sensors, pressure-regulators, flow sensors, etc. These are technologies that I always recommend, regardless of an owner’s desire to seek LEED accreditation. When properly used, these items typically pay for themselves within a couple of years.
The second method we use to accomplish this 50% reductions is to increase the amount of drip irrigation and decrease the amount of pop-up sprinkler irrigation. Drip irrigation is significantly more efficient than pop-up sprinkler type irrigation. There are methods that help us narrow the gap between the two, but few are recognized by the U.S. Green Building Council. Increasing the percentage of drip irrigation on a project results in more landscaped areas and less turf areas. Drip irrigation can also be used in turf areas, but it is not very common in our area. Established mulched landscaped plantbeds have a lower water requirement then turf.
I recently completed construction documents on a project which is seeking the two points for 50% landscape water reduction. Because of the criteria set by the U.S. Green Building Council, the landscape architect reduced the amount of turf that they would have typically used so that we could utilize more drip irrigation. As a result of the reduced percentage of turf, we were able to reduce the water requirement of the landscape by more than 50% and apply for two points towards LEED Certification.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Ways to Reduce Irrigation Installation Costs Through the Landscape Design
Disclaimer: The following is in no way an attempt to suggest how to design a landscape. I am not a landscape architect or designer. Not even close. The following will illustrate how landscape design decisions affect the installation costs of an irrigation system.
There are several ways a landscape architect can help reduce the installation costs of the irrigation system:
Please note that utilizing these methods only decreases the installation costs. Maintenance and operation costs would be a whole other entry.
There are several ways a landscape architect can help reduce the installation costs of the irrigation system:
- Using only one type of plant material (perennials, annuals, or turf) in all of the parking lot islands on the site. Each of these plant materials have different water requirements. What this means is when the islands are designed with more than one type of plant material, the irrigation system will need to have a separate valve/zone for each. When a valve/zone is added additional wire and a larger controller will also be required. There will also need to be two or three different laterals run to each island, which increases the total pipe and fittings quantities. Because of the additional pipe running between the islands, the sleeving size would also need to be increased.
- Limit the frequent transitions between turf and plantbeds to the more focal areas. Breaking up the landscape undoubtedly adds beauty to the project. However as the landscape transitions so does the irrigation system. These transitions ultimately results in requiring a higher total station count, more sprinklers, valves, wire, pipe and a larger controller.
- Limiting the width of turf areas. The most economical type of irrigation to install in turf areas is pop-up type sprinklers. There are two primary types of pop-up type sprinklers. The spray head type sprinkler, which is typically used for any areas that do not require a radius of more than 17’, and the rotor type sprinkler to treat larger areas. The minimum pressure requirement for the spray type sprinkler is 30 psi at the base of the sprinkler. The rotor type requires at least 40 psi, but we usually like to see a little more. I have seen many sites were and additional 10 psi requirement has made it necessary to have a booster pump station installed.
- Space plants further apart in less focal areas. This can be a very effective way to decrease the total quantity of drip tubing, lateral piping, and valves, as well as minimizing the total station count required by the controller.
- When the rear of a building is rarely seen by customers, leave it undisturbed. Not to sell myself out of a job, but areas left undisturbed with existing trees and “rough mowed”, usually can go un-irrigated in our area.
Please note that utilizing these methods only decreases the installation costs. Maintenance and operation costs would be a whole other entry.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Introduction
Hello, my name is Marc Kovach and I am an active irrigation designer/consultant and principal at Kovach Design Solutions, LLC.
For some time now, I have thought about writing a blog. What has prevented me from starting this? Over the years I have found that a lot of our clients understand the importance of sustainability, but did not want to take the time to discuss water use for landscapes. Why write a blog if no one is going to read it? I wondered why people felt this way? We all know how important water is to life.
It was not until recently, during a few conversations, reasoning for this was revealed to me. Most blogs about landscape water conservation are not written by someone in our area. Although landscape water conversation in our area is important, it is different than someone from a drought stricken area of Texas. We do not have non-irrigation days like Florida. We do not need to irrigate our yards for the same reason as those living in Arizona. The Mid-Atlantic is unique.
After this revelation, I felt what would help our partners and others in the industry would be someone writing about irrigation and water conservation from our area’s point of view.
So here is goes! We hope you find the information found on these pages useful. If there is something you would like to discuss, please feel free to let us know.
For some time now, I have thought about writing a blog. What has prevented me from starting this? Over the years I have found that a lot of our clients understand the importance of sustainability, but did not want to take the time to discuss water use for landscapes. Why write a blog if no one is going to read it? I wondered why people felt this way? We all know how important water is to life.
It was not until recently, during a few conversations, reasoning for this was revealed to me. Most blogs about landscape water conservation are not written by someone in our area. Although landscape water conversation in our area is important, it is different than someone from a drought stricken area of Texas. We do not have non-irrigation days like Florida. We do not need to irrigate our yards for the same reason as those living in Arizona. The Mid-Atlantic is unique.
After this revelation, I felt what would help our partners and others in the industry would be someone writing about irrigation and water conservation from our area’s point of view.
So here is goes! We hope you find the information found on these pages useful. If there is something you would like to discuss, please feel free to let us know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)