By: Wesley Holmes

This morning I found some time to sit around drinking coffee and reading this weeks’ (May 31) Time Magazine , a rare and pleasant occurrence on Tuesday. I came across an interesting article in the Life Section titled Extreme Makeover: Parking Edition. This brief piece, by Lisa Davis, details the re-thinking of American parking space. The article highlights a number projects going on around the country to maximize the utility of thousands of acres of paved parking areas. Projects include a variety of clever start-ups, such as building over the top of parking areas to create mixed use and residential building space, as well as a San Diego based project covering expansive garage roofs with solar panels that provide enough energy for 68 homes. Some projects are more lo-tech and lo-cost efforts to turn expanses of asphalt into green space. Pictures from the article illustrate how Wellesley College, over the course of a seven year clean up project, turned a 175 space parking area covering a toxic brownfield into a community park. The parks wetland features now help to manage stormwater runoff.

The article also mentioned a really cool urban planning competition that I want to pass along to APUS students and faculty. Currently, there is an open call to architects, urban designers, planners, students, visionaries and everyone else interested in re-shaping Long Island suburbs. In other words, you don’t have to an engineer; you just have to have a good idea. It’s called the “Build a Better Burb” competition and its creators, a research non-profit called the Long Island Index, are looking for “bold design proposals for retrofitting underutilized asphalt in suburban downtowns into innovative and surprising new uses, forms and urbanisms”. The project invites visionaries of whatever stripe to offer design and redevelopment plans for a number of large parking areas throughout the “first suburbs” on Long Island. The parcels of land add up to an amazing 8,300 acres of land that could be put to better use. Submittals for the project are due by June, 21^st, but for those most outstanding ideas the judges will award a guaranteed first prize of $10,000 and $10,000 in additional prizes, to be announced in September 2010. In addition there will be a $2,500 prize awarded to the top project submitted by a student currently enrolled in an undergraduate or graduate program.

This project presents an opportunity to re-think how our communities are designed and explore ways pre-developed land can be re-utilized to reduce our consumption of unspoiled natural land. In doing so, it embodies the principal theme of next months (June 15-17) 2010 Green Remediation Conference. The conference is being co-hosted by the Environmental Institute, the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and the U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. The conference, to be held at Amherst, will provide a forum for scientists, regulators, environmental engineers, sustainability managers, educators, and other stakeholders to interact and share new knowledge on how green approaches can be applied to site cleanup and sustainable reuse. Apus-green-building.com is happy to announce that Environmental Studies Program Director, Dr. Carol Pollio and I will be presenting the APUS Academic Center project as a case study on brownfield revitalization through sustainable development. Our project will be presented as part of day long symposium of sustainable development projects and technologies. As President Boston noted at the outset, one of the goals of this project is to set an example for others in the community. Community revitalization and environmentally conscious development are a hallmark of the growth of APUS. The conference in Amherst provides an ideal venue to showcase the economic viability and sound business strategy of the APUS approach.

Just in time for last weeks 40^th Earth Day Celebration, on April 21^st, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) announced its selections for this years Top Ten Green Projects. Each year the AIA accepts nominations for the greenest new buildings from across the country. The AIA’s Committee on the Environment (COTE) picks 10 buildings which demonstrate how design can reduce environmental impacts by reusing materials, connecting to public transit, conserving water and energy and improving indoor air quality. Apus-green-building.com is happy to announce that one of this years winners is an elementary school located just down the road from APUS offices in Manassas, Virginia.

Manassas Park Elementary School (MPES) is fundamentally designed around the premise that people, especially children, cannot be expected to preserve or protect something they do not understand; a theme which is echoed throughout the campus sustainability movement. As such, the school is conceived throughout as a teaching tool that shepherds children along a path of environmental stewardship. Inside and out, sustainable design is integrated with the elementary curriculum. Design decisions were made with the expressed goal of showcasing as many teachable moments as possible. Not only are children offered exceptional views of the schools surrounding forest, they are invited to use the numerous exterior break-out spaces and to explore the piedmont landscape directly. The principal bio-retention area, for example, is detailed to serve as outdoor classroom, performance stage, and parent pick-up queue. Additionally, a comprehensive signage program reinforces each teachable moment by highlighting green building facts, demystifying sustainable building systems, and describing flora and fauna found in the area.

The COTE Top Ten Green Projects program, now in its 14th year, celebrates projects that are the result of a thoroughly integrated approach to architecture, natural systems and technology. The criteria for submitted projects parallel the same design and process requirements outlined by the USGBC LEED program. As noted by the AIA Press Release the projects selected by the committee make a positive contribution to their communities, improve comfort for building occupants and reduce environmental impacts through sustainable design strategies. The MPES project and the  nine other winners will be honored at the AIA 2010 National Convention and Design Exposition in Miami. However, since this amazing project serves the communities that support APUS staff and their families, apus-green-building.com would like take this opportunity to congratulate and thank Manassas Park City Schools for taking an environmentally conscious approach to this development. APUS faculty and staff work diligently to equip adults with the knowledge and skills necessary to make our communities safer, healthier and more sustainable, but we learn our most long lasting lessons and habits as children. The lessons and ethics that can be garnered from schools like MPES are sure to make an invaluable contribution to realizing a greener future for our children and our communities.

By: Wesley Holmes

EA Prerequisite 1: Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems -Required

Intent- To verify that the project’s energy-related systems are installed, and calibrated to perform according to the owner’s project requirements, basis of design and construction documents.

 

EA Credit 3: Enhanced Commissioning – 2 Points

Intent- To begin the commissioning process early in the design process and execute additional activities after systems performance verification is completed.

Recently the Academic Center project achieved a milestone with the setting of the last steel girder. With the basic building frame achieved the project will now move on to prepping the building for its power and water needs. Beginning this week, electricians are installing conduit to the electric room and crews managed by Cox Schepp Construction will start building utility connections allowing the Academic Center to tap into the municipal grid. As the project advances into the utilities phase it seems an appropriate time to address Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Pre-Requisite 1, Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems. According to a study sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) and conducted by the Berkeley National Laboratory, building commissioning maximizes the quality and persistence of energy, cost, and emissions reductions. The process ensures that building owners get what they pay for when constructing or retrofitting buildings. The benefits of commissioning include reduced energy use, lower operating costs, fewer contractor callbacks, better building documentation, and improved occupant productivity.

Inefficient building design can have a significant impact on the environment as well the building owners’ financial bottom line. The National Institute on Building Sciences reports that buildings in the United States annually consume 39% of America’s energy and 68% of its electricity. Furthermore, buildings emit 38% of the carbon dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas associated with climate change), 49% of the sulfur dioxide, and 25% of the nitrogen oxides found in the air. The DOE’S Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy reported in their annual Buildings Energy Data Book that space heating, lighting, and space cooling are the top three energy end-uses with water heating and electronics as the next top two end-uses. Deficiencies in the design and construction phase can have a host of ramifications, ranging from equipment failure, to compromised indoor air quality and comfort, to unnecessarily elevated energy use or under-performance of energy-efficiency strategies. The cost of mitigating early design and construction flaws can be substantial. The DOE report notes that in 2006 building improvements and repairs cost owners $438 billion.

The USGBC mandates that developers seeking LEED certification engage in a commissioning process to minimize these deficiencies and foster efficient building performance. Systems required to be commissioned include HVAC, refrigeration, lighting and day-lighting, domestic hot water systems, renewable energy systems and any associated control mechanisms. EA Pre-Requisite 1 requires, amongst other things, that the project team designate an individual as the commissioning authority (CxA) to lead, review and oversee the completion of the commissioning process activities. The CxA is independent of the project design and construction management and reports directly to the owner to assure that design and construction plans meet the owners intended performance standards. To help achieve optimum energy efficiency in the new Academic Center APUS has contracted the services of KLG Jones, a nationally recognized engineering firm dedicated to building commissioning, retro-commissioning, and energy consulting.

In an effort to make the building more efficient and ensure that APUS employees enjoy the greatest benefit from the commissioning process, the project team is also attaining EA Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning. This enhanced process requires that the CxA be involved prior to the start of the construction documents and that the team develop a comprehensive energy systems manual and training program for APUS employees. To see that systems continue to function properly the CxA will also be involved in a systems review with APUS maintenance staff within 10 months of building occupation. This enhanced commissioning will aide in reducing operating and maintenance costs by ensuring proper functioning of design features and proper systems management by staff. APUS decision to engage in systems commissioning should aide in reducing both immediate and long term costs as well as increasing occupant health and comfort.

Links of Interest

Energy Star Portfolio Manager- an interactive energy management tool that allows you to track and assess energy and water consumption across your entire portfolio of buildings in a secure online environment.

By Wesley Holmes

As APUS has grown and expanded it has consistently embraced an environmentally conscious business model. The decision to achieve LEED Gold standards of performance for the new Academic Center is a continuation of this sustainable philosophy and representative of a collective movement among colleges and universities across North America to make our educational institutions more environmentally sound and economically sustainable. A quick Google Scholar search of “greening our academic institutions” reveals that the idea of colleges and universities taking a lead role in environmental sustainability emerged in the early 1990’s and has been steadily gaining in momentum over the past two decades. The growth of this movement has manifested in organizations such as the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) and organized institutional efforts such as the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). These collective efforts have come to be known as the Campus Sustainability Movement.

The origins of this movement within academia are best articulated by Leith Sharp of the Harvard School of Public Health and founder of Harvard’s Office for Sustainability. According to Sharp, the Campus Sustainability Movement was born out of frustration with the clear disconnect between the environmental threats and ecologic principles expounded upon in the classroom that were being largely ignored in campus facility design and operation. For many students and faculty the idea of teaching sustainability without demonstrating it is highly problematic. Students and faculty alike wanted to take a more proactive role on their campuses and turn theory into practice. It has been suggested that this drive for ecologic stability on campuses largely mirrors growing desires for sustainability across the country. Advocates for campus sustainability initiatives note that the higher education sector serves as an ideal proving ground for sustainable technologies and practices. These sentiments have helped fuel a movement dedicated to transforming our educational institutions into living laboratories for the demonstration and practice of environmental sustainability.

Over the last decade the Campus Sustainability Movement has made significant strides. According to a National Wildlife Federation Campus Ecology Survey conducted in both 2001 and 2008, of the 1,068 schools surveyed in 2008, 65% had some form of written commitment to address environmental sustainability or stewardship (or at least had a plan in place to create one), compared to just 43% of the schools surveyed in 2001. In 2007, the American higher education sector had approximately 285 construction projects underway that had been certified under the United States Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program (USGBC, 2007). At the time, this accounted for about 10% of LEED projects nationally. According to AASHE, between mid-2007 and March 2009, over 620 presidents of colleges and universities in the United States endorsed the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). One of these signatories was APUS President Wallace Boston. President Boston on joining the ACUPCC.

Since signing the Commitment, APUS has taken several significant steps toward reducing its overall carbon footprint and working toward achieving carbon neutrality in its operations.  Under President Boston’s guidance, APUS has implemented a Sustainability Committee which is tasked with managing the various aspects of the Commitment.  Comprised of employees from nearly every department within the online university, the Committee is dedicated to addressing various aspects of the school’s operations in order to achieve greater sustainability.  The school has implemented a recycling program in both its Charles Town, WV and Manassas, VA locations.  Additionally, the school’s admissions process is now completely paperless, leading to a more streamlined experience for students and staff as well as a more environmentally sound operation overall.  The school is currently working to implement systems to create a paperless accounts payables process as well.  In late 2009, the university installed an environmentally friendly porous paving system in its Charles Town, WV location.  The system prevents storm water runoff by providing a compacted layer of stone beneath the pavers which serves as a filter for water prior to its absorption into the ground.  Nearly all buildings in both APUS campus locations have been outfitted with occupancy sensors which have greatly increased energy efficiency.  Members of the school’s Sustainability Committee have recently launched a blog, http://apus-sustainability.com, which will serve as an outreach mechanism for sharing ideas related to sustainability in higher education, in general, as well as a means of documenting and sharing APUS’ experiences as it works toward achieving a more sustainable future.

Links and Citations

LEED Certified Projects Directory

National Wildlife Federation Campus Ecology Program

The College Sustainability Report Card

Sharp, L. 2009. Higher education: the quest for the sustainable campus. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 5(1):1-8. http://ejournal.nbii.org/archives/vol5iss1/editorial.sharp.html.

United States Green Building Council (USGBC). 2007. LEED Registered Projects. https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2313. (March 19, 2010)

By: Wesley Holmes

Two weeks ago a student posted a question on our Brownfields discussion. The question concerned how the efficacy of a Brownfield cap would be tested after its installment. This seemed like a fair question, so I have spent the last couple of weeks making inquiries to the projects Civil Engineers, who are responsible for designing the cap, as well as the EPA and other professionals. What I have found is that local and federal authorities do not require follow up testing for projects such as the new Academic Center. The reason no additional testing is required is based on threat categorization, project size, and practicality.

As we discussed in the Brownfields Post the site in Charles Town was formerly utilized as a scrap heap. To prevent further leaching of metal contaminates present in the soil the site has been capped with concrete and asphalt. The cap consists of the building footings (4′ of concrete, compacted stone and a vapor barrier) and an asphalt parking lot.  Once those items are in place, soil testing beneath them is not possible. It is also highly unlikely that a significant volume of water, if any, could penetrate these layers and cause contaminates to leach further into the water table.

The level of risk associated with contaminated sites varies greatly depending on the site characteristics and the nature of the contamination. It is important to note that while the site in Charles Town is a Brownfield, the contaminate area is not a highly toxic waste site. Note, I am not trying to downplay the necessity of adequately sequestering contaminates on any Brownfield. However, for our discussion here, it is important to note that the site in question is not so large and so dangerously contaminated as to warrant a high threat designation, such as a Superfund site. Superfund sites are areas where threats are so great and the area so large that funds are appropriated from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), to address the issue and protect local residents and resources. On January 11, 2002, President Bush signed the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Pub .L.No. 107-118, 115 stat. 2356, “the Brownfields Law”). The Brownfields Law amended CERCLA by providing funds to assess and clean up Brownfields. These types of policy approaches help make projects like the Academic Center possible. Click Here to Link to the EPA’s Superfund Site

For typical Brownfield sites, such as ours, the threat level and necessary follow up for remediation efforts is designated by local codes and authorities. For the project in Charles Town, the regulatory agency responsible for assessing threat levels and assigning follow up activities is the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP).  According to the WVDEP, the remaining exposed soil on the site of the Academic Center, consisting of small decorative plant beds, is not of sufficient size to require additional testing. This finding by local authorities would suggest that their inspection revealed insufficient risk to merit further testing of the soil after it has been covered with several feet of impervious paving material and a three story building.

Thanks for the question Henry! Please keep reading and feel free to submit any more questions you may have.

4.1: Public Transportation Access-6 Points

4.2: Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms-1 Point

4.3: Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles-3 Points

4.4: Parking Capacity-2 Points

Intent: To reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use.

This week we are looking at Site Selection Credits 4.1 through 4.2 which address ways to facilitate and encourage Alternative Transportation. This issue has wide ranging implications and addresses not only environmental impacts but health care issues as well. In May 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hosted a workshop to develop a scientific research agenda that would investigate how the design of a community’s built environment influences the health of its residents. A growing body of literature is showing that the design of cities, neighborhoods, and individual buildings can affect levels of physical activity, which is an important factor in the prevention of obesity and its associated adverse health consequences. Community design influences the amount to which its residents are dependent on automobiles, whose use contributes to air pollution, motor vehicle crashes, and pedestrian injuries.

Click Here to read more about the CDC’s Healthy Community Design

To help address these issues the USGBC recommends that developers and business owners implement design strategies and operational standards that encourage and enable employees to utilize healthier, greener commuting options. First is Public Transportation Access, worth 6 out of 12 possible points. This option has the greatest potential to reduce environmental impact because it allows employees to leave their cars at home. Utilizing bus and rail lines substantially reduces auto emissions produced during commute and also encourages a healthy walking habit. For the new Academic Center, this credit is achieved by using Option 2-Bus Stop Proximity. This option requires that a project be located within ¼ mile of a bus stop usable by the building occupants. The Academic Center provides convenient access to the local bus line operated by PanTran-Eastern Panhandle Transit Authority. Along with convenient pedestrian access, APUS has campus transportation services which run during the most frequent commuting hours and connect to public transportation.

In addition to public transportation access, the LEED design system also recommends the installation of bicycle racks and changing rooms to provide local employees the option to ride their bike to work. Credit 4.2 is achieved by providing bicycle racks within 200 yards of building entrance for 5% of building users and shower/changing facilities in the building for 0.5% of full time equivalent occupants. For the site in Charles Town, APUS is installing rolling racks that will facilitate up to nine bikes and changing facilities on each floor to accommodate their employees. The potential impact of bicycle commuting is gaining in popularity. All over the country, developers, city planners and employers are recognizing the potential impacts, not just for individual buildings, for whole cities as well. On December 11, 2009, a new bike access law took effect in New York City, stipulating that buildings with freight elevators must allow employees to use those elevators to take their bikes upstairs. The law aims to encourage bicycle commuting by eliminating worries about the security of street parking.

Click Here to read New York Times Article on 2009 Bike Law

For those employees who do not have access to public transportation and do not live close enough for bicycle travel, Alternative Transportation Credits 4.3 and 4.4 outline operational opportunities to address automobile travel and parking issues. Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation-Low-Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles (3 pts) to achieve these points APUS has elected to pursue Option 1 within this credit, providing preferred parking for 5% of parking capacity for fuel efficient vehicles (FEV). At the site of the Academic Center that amounts to six premium parking spaces located near the entrance of the building. While that may seem a small number of spaces, it is only because it reflects APUS pursuance of Credit 4.4 Alt Transportation-Parking Capacity (2 pts). The new Academic Center will provide parking for less than 5% of the total building occupants. This reduces the landscape footprint of the project and reduces the amount of impervious cover which aides in the control of stormwater runoff. Of the spaces available APUS has also elected to provide preferred parking for 5% of parking capacity for carpool vehicles.

The top two of Ten Simple Steps to Reducing Climate Change outlined by the Federal Highway Administration are #1 Buy a fuel efficient vehicle and #2 leave your car at home. By encouraging and incentivizing employees to make more ecologically sound travel choices APUS is able to make a significant impact on the local environment by reducing emissions and the impervious cover of their parking areas. The alternative transportation options provided by the buildings proximity to services allows employees to save a little money on gas and encourage healthy activity such as biking and/or walking to work. With these ecologic benefits comes health and economic benefits for the employees of APUS and the rest of the Charles Town Community

Studies Cited

Dannenberg, A., Jackson, R., Frumkin, H., Schieber, R., Pratt, M., Kochtitzky, C., et al. (2003). The Impact of Community Design and Land-Use Choices on Public Health: A Scientific Research Agenda. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1500-1508. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

1 Point: Intent

To rehabilitate damaged sites where development is complicated by environmental contamination and to reduce pressure on undeveloped land. 

As we discussed in Sustainable Sites (SS) Credit 1: Site Selection, the USGBC encourages developers to concentrate new development projects in areas that have already been altered from their natural state and preserve existing Greenfields. Greenfields are sites where natural features have not been developed. SS Credit 3, Brownfield Redevelopment, ups the ante and urges developers to build on land that not only has been previously developed, but as a result of its past use is now contaminated. As defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties protects the environment, reduces blight, and takes development pressures off Greenfields and working lands.

The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that there are more than 450,000 Brownfields in the U.S. amounting to estimates as high as 5 million acres! These numbers suggest that nearly every community in the U.S. contains a Brownfield site, for these communities redevelopment of such sites can improve community appearance and image, relieve associated health and environmental concerns, and produce a beneficial economic effect through increased property values and employment opportunities. Click Here to read an EPA primer on Brownfield Redevelopment.  Such is the case in Charles Town, where the site of the new Academic Center was formerly utilized as a scrap heap. As rain fell on the site, water seeping through old machinery and metal products became inundated with soluble metal forms and petroleum based lubricants and compounds which were then transported into the soil and ultimately the groundwater underneath Charles Town. While the scrap has been removed the soil still contains contaminates which APUS had to find a way to control. 

In order to facilitate the Brownfield redevelopment process a systematic approach is necessary for assessment and remediation of Brownfields.

The most important aspects of the approach include (1) site characterization; (2) impact (or risk) assessment; and (3) the selection of an effective remedial action. As APUS worked through this process it was decided that the most effective means of remediation would be to cap the site with concrete and prevent further groundwater infiltration from the contaminated soil. With the redevelopment of this site APUS has prevented groundwater infiltration of contaminates contained within the soil. In pursuit of SS Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment, APUS has effectively contained a watershed threat and improved water quality conditions for the local community.

Image provided by OxBlue Construction Camera

 External Links of Interest

 EPA Brownfields Site

The Brownfields and Land Revitalization Technology Support Center

 Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites

 The National Brownfields Association

Required: Intent

To reduce pollution from construction activities by controlling soil erosion, waterway sedimentation and airborne dust generation.

On December 1, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) and new source performance standards (NSPS) to control the discharge of pollutants from construction sites This rule requires construction site owners and operators to implement a range of erosion and sediment control measures and pollution prevention practices to control pollutants in discharges from construction sites as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The disturbed soil generated by construction activities can easily be washed off of the construction site during storms and enter water bodies. Stormwater discharges from construction activities can cause an array of physical, chemical and biological impacts. The EPA believes the new rule, implemented February 2010, will help significantly improve water quality nationwide. (Click here to read the EPA press release).

The EPA ruling comes a full 11 years after the formation of the United States Green Building Council. Since the first version of LEED was issued in 1998 it has contained a requirement that all development projects seeking LEED certification must develop a Construction Site Pollution Prevention Plan. This pre-requisite requirement calls for the creation and implementation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan for all construction activities associated with the project. The plan must describe the measures implemented to accomplish the following objectives:

• To prevent loss of soil during construction by stormwater runoff and/or wind erosion, including protecting topsoil by stockpiling for reuse.
• To prevent sedimentation of storm sewers or receiving streams.
• To prevent pollution of the air with dust and particulate matter.

Images provided by http://www.stormwaterresourcesformunicipalities.com/monroe_county.htm

Strategies for addressing polluted construction runoff include temporary and permanent seeding, mulching, earthen dikes, silt fencing, sediment traps and sediment basins. Click here to view EPA Run-Off Control Poster. In pursuit of LEED Gold certification, the site of the new Academic Center will employ a variety of these pollution prevention strategies. These efforts will help to protect the water resources and aquatic habitats surrounding Charles Town, such as the beautiful and strategically important Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers.

External Links of Interest

EPA Fact Sheet Final Rule: Effluent Guidelines for Discharges from the Construction and Development Industry:

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/construction/files/c_and_d_final_rule_factsheet.pdf

EPA Stormwater Discharges

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/const.cfm

 EPA Guide to producing NPDES Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans

http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swppp.cfm#state

5 Points: Intent

To channel development to urban areas with existing infrastructure, protect greenfields, and preserve habitat and natural resources.

As we discussed in the last blog post, one of the principle components of sustainable development is the wise use of land and the preservation of existing natural landscapes. LEED Site Selection Credit 2: Development Density and Community Connectivity builds upon this concept by encouraging developers to concentrate the built environment in areas that already have existing infrastructure. By concentrating building sites in a designated land area, developers can reduce the amount of impact they have on the surrounding environment.

The new Academic Center will contain one of the Nation’s largest collections of military studies literature. It promises to provide a valuable research and educational resource to APUS students and scholars across the country. This resource would be of little value were it constructed with no electricity, no plumbing and no driveway.

It is easy to overlook the multitude of connections that make our homes and places of business function properly. The physical structure of a building is only one component of the buildings’ utility. Before the Academic Center can be fully utilized it must first be connected to the Charles Town utility grid.Power lines must be run from the local provider to the building site to power its lights, HVAC systems and computer banks. Storm drains and plumbing pipes must be installed to run water to and from the site. This is one of the issues APUS considered when siting the new Academic Center.  President Boston explains the decision to build in Charles Town.

The construction of these systems all carry with them environmental and financial impacts (Click here to read EPA Report on Land Use) . Whether the power lines and pipes are above ground or below the land must be cleared along their path. The further electricity is carried from its source the more energy is lost in its transmission. The more pipes, wires and connections required to go the distance create greater opportunity for rupture or failure and  increased maintenance costs. In making roads land has to be cleared, graded and paved fracturing the landscape. The further away a building site is located from an urban area the greater the impact the associated connections can have. The further electricity, water and people have to go the more materials will be necessary to make the connections. Longer power lines, longer pipes, and longer roads all translate to greater cost to the developer, greater consumption of materials and ultimately a larger carbon footprint.

By constructing the APUS Academic Center on a previously developed site, the University is able to capitalize on existing infrastructure. Roads, pipes and power lines that already exist can be tapped to supply the site with the utilities it needs to function. By adhering to the land selection criterion outlined by the USGBC, APUS has not only saved valuable natural landscapes from destruction, they have reduced the impact of utilities provision. Yet another small step towards sustainability that makes a great leap in environmental protection and financial security.

NBC News4 Washington has created an interactive tool to help measure your impact on the environment. It takes about 10 minutes to fill out. Be prepared with a recent gas and electricity. You don’t have to calculate anything – the tool will do it for you – just enter information about your lifestyle.