This credit comprehensively addresses practices for maintaining your project site. Because this credit covers so much ground, it’s important for teams to thoroughly review all requirements and get a clear understanding of who is responsible for overseeing the different operational areas.
In some instances, a single requirement may be especially challenging to meet, and may end up being a deal-breaker for pursuing the credit. For example, projects that experience harsh winters may have trouble meeting the deicer requirement.
Remember to lay the groundwork for this credit by developing a clear and actionable Site Management Policy for SSp1. The policy is an important guidance document for all projects that attempt this credit.
The Required Documentation table in the LEED Reference Guide outlines the data and documentation that needs to be collected for the performance period. Table 1 provides additional guidance.
No. The 20% threshold is no longer available.
No, the contractor does not need to document the maintenance of the equipment. Provide a total inventory of the contractor's equipment (this could be a list, copies of the manufacturer's info, or anything showing the type of equipment they use and power source. Of course, the inventory is just a snapshot in time. Ensure that substitutions are also electric.
To preserve ecological integrity and encourage environmentally sensitive site management practices that provide a clean, well-maintained, and safe building exterior while supporting high-performance building operations and integration into the surrounding landscape.
Demonstrate that the following performance criteria were met:
Meet one of the following options:
Limit turf to 25% or less of the vegetated area.
Playgrounds and athletic fields in schools or parks are excluded from this option.
Use all manual or electric-powered equipment in all site management operations.
Show and maintain a 50% reduction in hydrocarbon (HC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and a 75% reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from baseline conditions.
Complete documentation for achievement of SSc - Site Management on the LEED v4 O+M:EB Platinum StopWaste.org headquarters office building at 1537 Webster Street, Oakland, CA. Project documentation was shared with LEEDuser through cooperation with that organization, and the LEED consultant, BuildingWise LLC
Use the Equipment Emissions Reduction Calculator on USGBC's website to calculate site management equipment emissions for LEED v4 O+M SS Credit Site Management Option 3. The calculator includes emissions for most site management equipment from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "NONROAD2008a" model for 2012, found on the EPA website. Use the summary tab in the calculator to complete the form in LEED Online.
Can a zero lot line building achieve this credit?
I don't see any precedence that would keep a zero lot line building from achieving this credit and the performance requirements don't list a specific site area or landscaping requirement like you see for the site management plan. A general rule of thumb is that avoidance is not compliance. If you can illustrate that most of the performance criteria can be met such as appropriate deicers at your entrances, low emitting equipment is used (blowers at entrances, window washing equipment?), then I don't see an issue. If you find that most of the performance items are not applicable to your site, this would be an indication that you may not be able to pursue the credit.
I also wanted to add that the second bullet under Step 4 in the Reference Guide states that Option 2 is a good path for "sites with minimal maintenance needs" and offers zero lot line buildings as an example.
For SS Credit Site Management, the performance requirement says: "Monitor irrigation systems manually or with automated systems AT LEAST EVERY TWO WEEKS during the operating season and correct any leaks, breaks, inappropriate water usage, or incorrect timing."
In Table 2 under the same credit on Further Explanation Section, Irrigation Management, inspection of irrigation should be AT LEAST TWICE PER YEAR.
Is Table 2 statement correct? Should inspection be part of monitoring process?
The table you are referring to in the further explanation section of the reference guide, helps to explain the different tasks that need to be completed and at what frequency.
It states that the team must perform routine leak detection during operating season by taking irrigation submeterSubmetering is used to determine the proportion of energy or water use within a building attributable to specific end uses such as tenant spaces, or subsystems such as the heating component of an HVAC system. readings every two weeks or using an automated leak detection system.
The next bullet down states that a full inspection of the irrigation system including leaks, breaks, irregularities in water usage, and system time settings, must be done twice a year.
The way I distinguish these two requirements is, the first is simply ensuring that there are no leaks in the water system every couple of weeks by checking the water usage readings for irregularities. The second is a deeper dive where you would likely walk the site and check on the irrigation system to see if there are any leaky heads, or other issues with the functioning of the system.
Although it is not very clear, I think these two tasks can be separated into the two buckets above.
I hope this helps!
I've been looking at deicers appropriate for this credit. After some chemicals were removed from the environmentally friendly list in the reference guide via the July addenda, I see calcium magnesium acetate (CMA) is the only one left. I've read CMA has a few downsides, but certainly not as bad as the salts/chlorides.
I've looked into some other products containing the following ingredients: Urea (Carbonyldiamide), Propylene Glycol, and Amides. Are you aware of any problems with these chemicals?
We are looking to use sand or something else for traction on ice, but it's not mentioned in the reference guide. Not sure if LEED has a stance on that as well?
I haven't heard of these three particular products being called out for an inability to use them on LEED projects. As the Site Management credit language specifically notes "use no calcium chloride or sodium chloride deicers..." if you're avoiding these products and the three products recently struck from the list of preferred types in the policy, I think you'll be safe. If the main ingredient in the items containing Urea (Carbonyldiamide), Propylene Glycol, and Amides happens to be CMA, I think it would only strengthen your argument.
I also have no heard specifically about an inability to add sand for traction purposes, but this may cause sedimentation concerns, complicating another portion of this credit for you. If there are strategies in place to ensure you're not allowing sand to leave the site and are disposing of it properly, this could put you in a better position.
Hello - the site I'm looking at already has under 25% turf area. In fact it has no turf, only vegetation. According to a different credit (Site Improvement Plan) there is a 5% min vegetation requirement. It is well above the 5% requirement. Since the site won't need any modification to meet Option 1, would this project still be eligible to receive the 1 point for not having turf? The maintenance equipment plan is being kept up to date for the performance period. Any insight is appreciated.
Since your site currently has less than 25% turf, you meet Option 1 and are compliant for this portion of the credit. It's not avoiding the credit compliance in any way, just being lucky enough to have it checked off your list early. I don't see any issues with your project achieving this point.
Great - thank you for your response. We will move forward with that then. Thanks Sam!
Is there an example of an acceptable "air quality protection log" that USGBC is looking for in this credit?
I don't believe there is an example log available from the USGBC, but I would recommend creating a log that allows for checking, writing notes/ remediation actions, and providing a photo to document strategies in place for construction erosion and sedimentation practices in the SS policy as well as appropriate materials and equipment storage practices, all of which will contribute to air quality protection.
This says we have to reduce from the baseline, which I assume is our initial reported use. However, if this is the case how can there be any reduction? Is it suppose to read something along the lines of have a proposed reduction of ... or is there something else I'm missing here?
Option 3 does require some changes to be made to current operations to achieve emissions reductions. Using the equipment emissions reduction calculator provided by the USGBC (link in comment below), enter all equipment types and time of use currently in place at the site to set the baseline. You will thenl need to switch out equipment or reduce time spent with high emission equipment to achieve the necessary reductions.
Hope this helps.
Although an Equipment Emissions Reduction Calculator is provided, how do we address maintenance vehicles used on site? The calculator only accounts for equipment but wouldn't a pressure washer and sweeper need to be included in these calculations as well? Or are vehicles exempt? If they are not, how do we calculate the input values?
I appreciate any guidance! Thank you!
Vehicles are the only "equipment" that are noted as excluded. They reference trucks used for snow removal as an example. Therefore, I believe all other maintenance equipment used to clean and maintain the site should be included in your calculations. I would try to find the best match provided in the calculator for each missing piece of equipment. Their primary concern is anything utilizing gasoline. If a close match does not seem possible, you may use the "other" selection listed in the updated copy of the calculator found here: http://www.usgbc.org/resources/equipment-emissions-reduction-calculator
Thank you so much for the quick response Samantha!
Copyright 2017 – BuildingGreen, Inc.