See all forum discussions about NC-2009 SSc6.1
 Subscribe to new posts about NC-2009 SSc6.1 Post a new question aboutNC-2009 SSc6.1
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-2009 SSc6.1»
FAQs about SSc6.1 :

How can I achieve compliance if my project's stormwater control measures are outside the LEED project boundary?

I have 100-year data—how do I convert to 2-year?

Is it an acceptable strategy to capture the rainwater into tanks and discharge it into the public sewers after the rainstorm reducing the peak discharge?

Are there special considerations for international projects?

What performance threshold do I need to achieve for an Exemplary Performance point?

The calculations for this credit are always a headache! While our projects are usually awarded the credit, the equations in the LEED Reference Guide are helpful mostly for sizing a reservoir or cistern, but don't help you get to the final results. Does US

Why do the requirements focus on 1-year and 2-year, 24-hour storms?

Why include the 1-year storm in the credit requirements? Won't management practices for the 2-year storm be effective?

How can green roofs count as a stormwater control measure?

View answers »

Forum discussion

NC-2009 SSc6.1:Stormwater Design—Quantity Control

Run-off calculations for a site with future extensions

Profile picture for user vgrimaud
Valentin Grimaud
Thermal Engineer
TERAO Green Building Engineering
LEEDuser Basic Member
28 thumbs up

Dear community, We certify a project that will have two extensions in the future. Because of this we cannot earn crédits SSc5.1 and SSc5.2 as per the MPR. But I was wondering if this is the case for SSc6.1? Do I have to calculate post-development run-off by considering the future extensions (this would obviously make my compliance much harder but I could understand the logic of such requirement...)? Thank you for your help,

0
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 Mike Dee
Michael DeVuono
Regional Stormwater Leader
Arcadis North America
LEEDuser Expert
144 thumbs up

Thu, 12/19/2013 - 18:50

Are you referring to MPR 2? Building in its entirety? If your answer is yes, then yes, your stormwater calcs must be based on full build out. You can't show compliance for half the building, then build the remaining half down the road without improving the site SWM. This isn't just a LEED thing either, it is protection for the health, safety, and welfare of those downstream. Did I get this right? The building will be certified as a whole, but built in phases?
Profile picture for user vgrimaud
Valentin Grimaud
Thermal Engineer
TERAO Green Building Engineering
LEEDuser Basic Member
28 thumbs up

Sun, 12/22/2013 - 12:53

Dear Michael, The building and its site will be certified as a whole. 2 future phases are planned but they are not in the scope of the present certification work, they will be coming probably years after the start of operation of this first phase. Therefore there are 2 large areas of green spaces waiting for this to happen much later. The MPR I refer to is found in supplemental guidances of MPR, in the section dedicated to phased projects. There, you can find that credits SSc5.1&5.2 are not elligible in such projects and it makes sense. I assume that SSc6.1 is elligible but that the calculation conditions of the post development runoff must include the future buildings in order to make sense. But I was not entirely sure. I agree with you on the point that apart from LEED perspective it should be done this way to ensure health and safety. But the credit language is sometimes another thing. What do you think in light of these explanations? Many thanks,
Profile picture for user Mike Dee
Michael DeVuono
Regional Stormwater Leader
Arcadis North America
LEEDuser Expert
144 thumbs up

Mon, 12/23/2013 - 13:26

Valentin, I am not sure how this should play out in regards to LEED. It is my opinion, that you should account for the future development, if you can do so reasonably, and if you are positive that these future phases will be constructed. I do not think it would be unreasonable to prepare two SWM designs, one that addresses the current project, and a second that is a "retrofit" that addresses the expanded impervious surface, and is to be implemented at the time of the future expansion. This sounds like a great question for the GBCI technical staff so you do not waste too much time in design going down the wrong path.
Profile picture for user vgrimaud
Valentin Grimaud
Thermal Engineer
TERAO Green Building Engineering
LEEDuser Basic Member
28 thumbs up

Thu, 12/26/2013 - 16:33

Dear Michael, Thank you for your advises! Wish you great new year,

Add new comment

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