Agenda Packet - 2023-09-18AGENDA
Sustainability Advisory Board
September 18, 2023
6:30 p.m.
Willow A Room, Lake Oswego Maintenance Center
17601 Pilkington Road
503-675-2543 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
Contact: Quin Brunner, Management Analyst
Email: qbrunner@lakeoswego.city
Phone: 503-675-2543
The City of Lake Oswego is committed to providing equal access to information and meetings. For Americans with
Disabilities Act accommodations or translations/interpretation services, please submit your request at least four
business days prior to the event by visiting www.lakeoswego.city/accommodation or by phone at 503-635-0282.
• ¿Hablas espanol? Le proporcionaresmos una tradúccion de este document sin costo personal para usted.
• 한국말을 하시나요? 이 서류의 무료 번역이 요구하시면 가능합니다
• 您说中文（普通话）吗？可应要求提供本文件的免费笔译
Virtual access: This meeting will take place in person. If you would prefer to participate electronically (phone or
video conference), please contact staff by noon on September 18th.
Public comment: Public comment shall be limited to three minutes per individual. The Public Comment period will
not exceed thirty minutes in total. If you cannot attend the meeting and would prefer to provide public comment
in writing, please email the comment to staff by noon on September 18th.
Buzz Chandler, Co-Chair ∙ Jay Hamacheck, Co-Chair ∙ Kara Orvieto Ashley ∙ Robin Palao Bastardes ∙ Mark Puhlman
∙ Matt Schaeffer ∙ Whitney Street ∙ Margaux McCloskey, Youth Liaison ∙ Nathan Chen, Youth Liaison ∙
Mayor Joe Buck, Council Liaison ∙ Jeanne Enders, Alternate ∙ Matthew Coleman, Alternate
I. AGENDA
6:30 Call to Order
Approve Minutes
Public Comment (comment on agenda items may be deferred to discussion of that item)
6:45 Regular Business (I-Information, C-Conversation/Discussion, D-Decision, R-Recommend to
Council)
II. ADJOURNMENT
B. City Council Update Mayor Buck 15 min I
C.
Sustainability Considerations for the Wastewater
Treatment Facility Project
Anthony Hooper,
Deputy City Manager
Amanda Schweickert,
Project Director for WSP
1 hour I, C, R
D. Strategies to Increase Public Access to EV
Chargers
Jay Hamachek 15 min I, C
F. Updates & Announcements from Board and Staff All 15 min C
Page 2
503-675-2543 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
ATTACHMENTS
Please note that all materials are sent electronically. Please review before meeting.
• August 28, 2023 Meeting Minutes
• Memo – Sustainability Considerations for the Wastewater Treatment Facility Project
• Memo Attachment 1 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Baseline
• Memo Attachment 2 – Envision Assessment
NEXT MEETING: OCTOBER 18, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes
August 28, 2023
DRAFT
Call to Order / Roll Call
Jay Hamachek called the July 2023 meeting of the Sustainability Advisory Board to order at
approximately 6:30pm.
Members Present: Buzz Chandler, Jay Hamachek, Kara Orvieto, Robin Palao,
Whitney Street, Nathan Chen, Margaux McCloskey
Members Excused/Absent: Mark Puhlman, Matt Schaeffer, Jeanne Enders, Joe Buck
Staff: Quin Brunner
Public: None
Approval of Minutes
Jay made a motion to approve the minutes, Whitney seconded, minutes approved unanimously.
Public Comment
None.
Regular Business
A. Introductions
New and returning members introduced themselves. This was the first SAB meeting attended by
Youth Member Margaux McCloskey and Alternate Matt Coleman.
B. Selection of Parks 2040 Liaison
Buzz nominated Kara Orvieto to serve as the SAB liaison to the Parks 2040 Steering Committee.
Following discussion, below, her appointment was unanimously approved.
Kara expressed interest in the position, sharing that she has capacity for additional involvement with
SAB. Jay added that he sees this as an opportunity to work with great people (Parks & Rec staff) and
to meaningfully consider the changing needs of the park system that stem from higher density
housing developments. Kara shared her perspective on the responsibilities of a liaison – to keep SAB
members informed and solicit input on topics on the Parks 2040 agenda. Buzz added that this will
be a productive forum for increasing cross-board collaboration.
C. Farmers’ Market Planning
Kara drew attention to the sign-up sheet Quin sent earlier in the day, soliciting volunteers for the
SAB tables at the Farmers’ Market on September 16th and the Home and Vehicle Electrification Fair
on September 23rd. Members discussed their availability for both events and signed up for shifts on
the live Google spreadsheet.
City of Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes
June 26, 2023
Page 2 of 2
Matt asked for clarification on the intent of SAB’s presence at the Farmers’ Market. Jay shared that
SAB has been working to expand outreach efforts, having focused previously on EV charging
locations throughout the City, Oregon Energy Trust opportunities, and recycling education. Kara
added that the SAB information table also serves to increase visibility, both of the board and of the
Council’s prioritization of Sustainability initiatives. Matt asked about draw – how SAB can bring
people to the table. Jay shared that pamphlets and information are valuable and said he would
reach out to Oregon Energy Trust to see what they have available.
Buzz brought up the Home and Vehicle Electrification Fair, sharing that it has evolved from a EV
dealer-focused event to include electric bicycle displays, booths, speakers, and sponsors. He shared
that it is becoming a fall staple and encouraged all members to attend.
Kara asked Quin about next steps regarding the Farmers’ Market. Quin shared that he was hoping
to finish collecting shift sign ups by the end of the week. He added that he is working with Jay to
finalize an EV Charging location map and working with Madison to prepare EV Survey cards and
iPads. Jay offered to contact the Oregon Energy Trust for materials. Kara requested that Quin bring
the blue metal EV sign. Quin committed to sending a reminder email at the beginning of
September, outlining plans and shifts, and invited members to share additional ideas for creating an
engaging table.
D. Updates & Announcements from Board and Staff
• Buzz announced that the City’s Emergency Preparedness Fair is on Thursday, September 14th at
City Hall and encouraged members to attend.
• Quin shared that the next SAB meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 18th at 6:30pm. On
the agenda is a discussion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant project.
• Quin reminded Margaux and Nathan of the Youth Member Ice Cream Orientation on Monday,
September 11th.
Meeting adjourned at 7:04 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Quin Brunner
Management Analyst
503-675-3984 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
TO: Co-Chairs Buzz Chandler and Jay Hamachek
Sustainability Advisory Board Members
CC: Mayor Buck, City Council Liaison
Quin Brunner, Management and Program Analyst
FROM: Anthony Hooper, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: Sustainability Considerations for the Wastewater Treatment Facility Project
DATE: September 12, 2023
With feedback from the City Council and the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB), the project
team made sustainability a priority as a design parameter for the Wastewater Treatment
Facility Project (WWTF). As the project approaches 90% design completion, the team is proud
to present a look at the sustainability highlights of the project:
• Comprehensive resiliency and climate action components ranging from Category IV
earthquake-resistant buildings to floodplain mitigation to solar panels.
• Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Baseline Inventory with AquaNereda Aerobic Granular Sludge
(AGS) as the most sustainable compact treatment technology (see attachment 1).
• Gold rating indicated for the Envision Sustainable Infrastructure Framework
intended for infrastructure projects (see attachment 2).
As the City nears the early 2024 decision point on whether or not to move onto the final design
and construction phase of the WWTF Project, should the SAB recommend to the City Council:
Add a Class A reclaimed water system to irrigate Foothills Park for a total cost of $3,333,000?
Visual #1: Alignment of Irrigation Line (Red) from the Site to Foothills Park
Page 2 of 8
Project Background
The City has the 2023 Council Goal of “Collaborating with the City of Portland to make a
financially and environmentally responsible long-term investment in a wastewater treatment
plant.” The existing Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (TCWTP) was built in 1964 and is
owned and operated by the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) with the plant
nearing the end of its useful life cycle. Starting in 2018, the two cities have been investigating
constructing a new facility adjacent to the existing TCWTP through a public-private partnership.
In May 2021, the City entered into a preliminary services agreement with EPCOR Foothills
Water Project (EFWP) to complete the first phase of work to Design, Build, Finance, Operate,
and Maintain (DBFOM) a new Wastewater Treatment Facility. In April 2023, the City
extended a contract with EPCOR Foothills Water Project to advance project designs from a 60%
level to a 90% level.
In January/February 2024, the Lake Oswego City Council and the City of Portland Council will be
asked to consider all the information in preparation for a decision on whether to proceed with
the project. This will be the final “go/no-go” decision on whether the Councils will decide to
move forward with the project and enter a project agreement with EFWP for the next stage,
which involves finalizing design, constructing the new facility, and operating it for 30 years.
The cost to build the new wastewater treatment plant is estimated at around $185 million with
Lake Oswego’s share being approximately 70% and Portland’s share being about 30%. This cost
does not include the cost of financing, O&M for 30-years, land acquisition, or demolition and
remediating the existing plant. Currently, the preliminary total estimated cost for all of those
items is about $428 million. The costs and share on these items are actively being negotiated
with Portland and will be fully developed in early 2024, when a final decision is anticipated to
be made by both Lake Oswego and Portland.
Preliminarily, the option of building a new plant looks to be more cost effective than upgrading
the existing plant from a lifecycle cost standpoint with a total 30-year cost of about $613 million
for the new facility as compared to the 30-year lifecycle estimate of $800 million to $1 billion to
upgrade the existing plant. Moreover, the project team is in the process of reducing project
costs for the new plant and anticipates having final pricing available in about three months.
For more project information, please see: http://www.lakeoswegowastewaterfacility.org/
Visual #2: Rendering of New Facility as Compared to the Aerial Photo of the Existing Facility
Page 3 of 8
Resiliency and Climate Action Elements Integrated into the 90% Design
The team has made sustainability a design priority for EPCOR Foothills Water Project and has
incorporated the following resiliency elements into the project:
• New State-of-the-Art Facility. The WWTF will be a brand-new facility as compared to
the 1964 existing plant, which has had mechanical failures in the past that have led to
sewage spills into the Willamette River.
• Earthquake Resiliency. All of the buildings are designed to the highest earthquake
resiliency category of IV and are designed to be occupiable immediately after an
earthquake.
• Emergency Outfall. An emergency bankside outfall has been incorporated into the
design to provide resiliency in extreme weather events that involve high river levels with
a lot of rain.
• Generator. A generator will be installed on-site to provide backup electricity in the case
of a power outage.
• Flood Mitigation. Greater flood protection by increasing the elevation for the site as
compared to the existing plant, which will also increase protection to electrical
equipment. The Toklat site will be “filled in” to increase the elevation and provide
better flood mitigation.
Visual #3: Aerial Photo and Map of 1996 Flood (shown in black dots)
In addition, the team has included the following climate action sustainability items into the 90%
design:
• Higher Efficiency Equipment and Lighting. State-of-the-art and brand new as compared
to the existing plant. This also includes more efficient lighting with LEDs. In addition,
the City is exploring incentives with the Energy Trust of Oregon for this project and have
engaged with their experts on sustainability ideas.
• EV Chargers and Bike Racks. These will be located next to the administrative building.
• Efficient Landscaping. The landscaping designed to be low-maintenance and resilient.
Page 4 of 8
• Solar Panels. The roofs will be covered with the maximum number of solar panels,
within the context of sunlight exposure, in order maximize production of sustainable
energy, which will be utilized on-site as an offset to electricity purchased from the grid.
• Beneficial Reuse of Stormwater On-Site. A portion of on-site stormwater will be recycled
into the Treatment Facility and used as part of the treatment process (instead of using
drinking water).
• Better for the Willamette River. Higher quality effluent will be release to the Willamette
River as compared to the existing plant.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Baseline Inventory
The project team thought it would be prudent to complete an analysis of Greenhouse Gases
(GHG) for the new Wastewater Treatment Facility. As a result, Carollo Engineers was tasked
with completing a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Baseline Slide Deck (see Attachment 1).
The GHG Baseline will be presented and unpacked at the Sustainability Advisory Board Meeting.
As a preview, here are two charts. The first shows a breakdown of emissions by source with
total emissions being 1,513 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent with electricity through
Portland General Electric as ¾ of the emissions.
Visual #4: GHG Emissions for the Wastewater Treatment Facility Project (left) and Comparison
of Compact Technologies (right)
Envision Assessment
In previous meetings, the Council has asked the project team to make sustainability a priority.
As a result, and in partnership with your Board and the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network,
the decision was made to look at the project within a sustainability framework. After
completing research, staff selected the “Envision” framework through the Institute of
Sustainable Infrastructure, which includes 64 sustainability and resilience indicators to give an
award level of verified, silver, gold, or platinum. The Envision system is similar to the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system but Envision is focused on
infrastructure projects (mostly transportation and water/wastewater treatment) rather than
commercial buildings.
Page 5 of 8
As a communication tool, the project team has asked EPCOR to utilize experts from WSP to
complete the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure’s Envision framework. This framework is
designed with infrastructure projects in mind. In completing the analysis, the project has a
designation of “gold” for the project with 43% of available points. There is a very detailed
breakdown of the categories and the requirements in Attachment 2.
There are four award categories for the Envision Assessment, which are based on the
percentage of points awarded versus applicable points available:
• Verified: 20-30%
• Silver: 30-40%
• Gold: 40-50%
• Platinum: 50%+
One major caveat is that the Envision Framework recently was increased in difficulty with a new
version 3. Most projects in Envision that get awarded are either water or transportation
projects. Within the water projects, there are 17 wastewater treatment plants and 7 water
treatment plants. Out of these 24 projects, all of them used version 2 except for two that used
version 3, and version 3 is what the project would need to use. Version 3 is harder to achieve
certification in because it asks for more documentation from the project and the credits are
slightly different.
Of the 24 projects (version 2 and version 3):
• 21% received Verified
• 42% received Silver
• 21% received Gold
• 17% received Platinum
For version 3, there are two projects that have been enrolled and they received a “gold” and a
“verified” ranking. The experts for this framework tool have stated that they do not feel it is
realistic to get a platinum ranking for any wastewater treatment facility with the new version 3
framework. The project site is also very limited in size (fully programmed out six acres), which
also makes it challenging.
The framework is only intended to be used as a communication tool and staff doesn’t intend to
apply for the actual accreditation (certificate). However, the SAB could recommend that the
project team pursues this accreditation at an estimated cost of $500,000. Staff would advise
forgoing this certificate and utilizing the money for tangible sustainability-related items or to
help defray the cost of the reclaimed water project to Foothills (if your Board recommends this
option).
The score of “Gold” is a high bar within the framework (especially version 3) and this
designation would put this project in elite company in the industry.
Page 6 of 8
Class A Reclaimed Water for Beneficial Reuse at Foothills Park
There is one specific project element that the team needs feedback on from the Sustainability
Advisory Board, which is whether staff should ask the Council to approve a side project to
replace drinking water with reclaimed water in the irrigation system at Foothills Park.
The estimated costs are as follows:
• $255,000 to amend the Preliminary Services Agreement with EPCOR to design the Class
A reclaimed water system.
• $406,000 to upgrade the Treatment Facility to have a Class A Ultraviolet (UV) System
with vertical turbine pumps.
• $157,000 for electrical installation.
• $165,000 to compensate EFWP for design and construction management of the system.
• $466,000 to purchase and install the 4” piping system with minor pavement repairs
• $60,000 to modify the system at Foothills Park with new irrigation heads, valves,
signage, and other similar retrofits.
• $72,000 as a contingency given that this is a Class 3 estimate.
Total: ≈$1,581,000
There will be an additional estimated cost of approximately $800,000 to finance this as part of
the project.
Lastly, there is also an additional estimated cost of $20,000 per year to EPCOR for lab sampling,
UV bulb replacements, winterization of system, operating cost for pumps, and record keeping
for DEQ reporting. For the 30-year contract with EPCOR and including an inflation rate of 3%,
this would equate to an estimated $952,000 over the course of the contract.
The total cost for this system for 30-years is estimated at $3,333,000.
As a reference point, there was 1.53 million gallons of drinking water used in 2021 to irrigate
Foothills Park. In 2022, there was 1.90 million gallons used. Correspondingly, the cost to
irrigate Foothills Park is about $17,000 annually (based on 2022). Assuming the top end of the
savings, it would take 192 years for the money saved from the water bill to break-even as
compared to the 30-year lifecycle cost of the system. As an aside, the money to purchase the
project is anticipated to be funded out the Wastewater Fund and the savings would go to the
Parks Department in the General Fund as a result of no longer paying for potable water.
There are a few other considerations in regards to reclaimed water at Foothills Park. First, the
project assumes a Class A-level of treatment, which is the highest level of treatment for
reclaimed water. Second, the City irrigates for seven to eight months out of the year with the
system being unused for four to five months per year. Third, the City would need to permit this
Page 7 of 8
through the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and would need to report on it
annually. Lastly, this project could be viewed as a pilot project and scaled up in the future.
There would be the potential to add other sites if the irrigation was setup to go on at different
times.
On DEQ’s website, there are over 140 reclaimed water projects in Oregon; however, these are
almost exclusively “inside the fence” as the reclaimed water is delivered only at the project site
itself (i.e. reused in a lagoon or a pond). This reclaimed water project would be fairly unique for
Oregon since this is a Class A beneficial reuse from a treatment plant to a municipal park with
purple pipe (irrigation pipe).
Lastly, if the SAB recommends that this item be included as part of the project, then on October
3, 2023, the Council will be asked to authorize an amendment to the Preliminary Services
Agreement with EPCOR for $255,000 to fully design this item.
Sustainability Outreach and Engagement
There has been a lot of public communication on the project and the following list includes
outreach with resiliency and sustainability as a focus or component:
• Meetings and input from the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network (LOSN):
o April 14, 2021: Meeting with LOSN members
o Summer 2021: LOSN submitted questions and comments, which were considered
and answered by the City and EPCOR prior to start of design
o June 23, 2021: Meeting with LOSN board member to debrief response to comments
o August 5, 2021: Meeting with LOSN to prepare for their Online Forum on the
Wastewater Treatment Facility Project
o August 12, 2021: Project Team Presented at the LOSN Forum
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGd0H0CB0FA)
o October 14, 2021: Meeting with LOSN members and Mayor Buck
o December 17, 2021: LOSN presentation to staff with requests
o February 15, 2022: LOSN presented to the Council regarding the WWTF Project
(https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1929209&dbid=0&repo=CityOfLakeOswego)
o June 1, 2022: Meeting with LOSN members
• Council Study Session on October 5, 2021
(https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1880406&dbid=0&repo=CityOfLakeOswego)
• Community Information Session on October 13, 2021
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2CblxDk92s)
• Neighborhood Meeting #1 on February, 3, 2022
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5O7xuH3HkM)
• Presentation to the SAB on February 21, 2022
(https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1937786&repo=CityOfLakeOswego)
Page 8 of 8
• Online Open House from November 9 to December 11, 2022
(https://online-voice.net/LOwastewatertreatment/)
• Neighborhood Meeting #2 on June 22, 2023
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3FEt5bk7TI)
Closing Statement
The project team is very appreciative of the City Council, SAB, and LOSN for encouraging staff to
prioritize resiliency and sustainability for this important project. There will be a Study Session
focused on sustainability with the City Council on October 3, 2023 and the SAB’s feedback and
recommendations will be shared with the Council and public.
Attachments
1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Baseline
2. Envision Assessment
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
.
p
p
t
/
1
Lake Oswego P3 Wastewater Treatment FacilityGreenhouse Gas EmissionsInventory Baseline
Prepared by:
Dan Laffitte
Sarah Deslauriers
VIRTUAL // AUGUST 2023
Attachment 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Baseline
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
.
p
p
t
/
2
//Outline
•GHG Emissions Inventory Overview: Emission Sources
•GHG Emissions Baseline Inventory
•Annual Metric Tons
•By Source
•GHG Emissions Baseline Inventory Comparison
•Wastewater Treatment Plants
•Secondary Treatment Process
•Conclusions
2
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
.
p
p
t
/
3
3
Source Description
Purchased
Electricity
Power required by facility.
Natural Gas Combustion for plant operations.
Process
Emissions
N2O byproduct emissions from
treatment processes
Effluent
Discharge
Natural biological breakdown in
receiving waters to N2O
Solids Handling Truck hauling of primary sludge to
Columbia Boulevard.
Chemical
Production
Electricity and petroleum used for
sodium hypochlorite and polymer
production.
Chemical
Handling
Sodium hypochlorite, polymer, and
GAC hauling and delivery.
Replacement
Material
Production
Electricity used for UV parts and
GAC production.
Replacement
Material
Handling
UV replacement parts and GAC
delivery and disposal.
•Natural Gas Production was analyzed but the GHG value was de minimis and was removed from the graphs.
•Manufacturing of UV Replacement Parts was assumed to be 1/7 of operational electricity use based on literature values.
//GHG Emissions Inventory: Emission Sources Overview
Purchased Electricity
Natural Gas
Combustion
Nitrification/
Denitrification (N2O)
Effluent Discharge (N2O)
Solids Handling
Chemical Production
Chemicals Handling Replacement Material Production
Replacement Material Handling
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
.
p
p
t
/
4
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Me
t
r
i
c
T
o
n
s
o
f
C
O
2e
p
e
r
Y
e
a
r
Baseline
q
Replacement Material Handling
Replacement Material Production
Chemicals Handling
Chemical Production
Solids Handling
Effluent Discharge (N2O)
Nitrification/ Denitrification (N2O)
Natural Gas Combustion
Purchased Electricity
//GHG Emissions Baseline Inventory in Metric Tons
4
•Emissions based on one year of operation upon start-up in 2025
•Total emissions equal ~295 homes’ electricity use for one year (EPA calculator)
Total Emissions:
1,513 mt CO2e
Purchased Electricity
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
.
p
p
t
/
5
5
•Focus GHG reduction efforts on Purchased Electricity (e.g., purchase electricity from a green energy source to decrease
emission factor and, in turn, CO2e emissions)
•All values below 5% of the total inventory are considered de minimis and would not be the focus for reduction measures
//GHG Emissions Baseline Inventory…by Source
Total Emissions:
1,513 mt CO2e
Purchased Electricity
74.4%
Natural Gas
Combustion
0.1%
Nitrification/
Denitrification (N2O)
3.9%
Effluent Discharge (N2O)
9.3%
Solids Handling
3.9%
Chemical Production
0.3%
Chemicals Handling
0.2%Replacement Material Production
5.8%
Replacement Material Handling
2.0%
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
.
p
p
t
/
6
// GHG Emissions Baseline Inventory:
Comparing Lake Oswego to other WWTPs by process/plant
6
•LO WWTF shows better performance relative to other WWTPs
•Comparison plants vary in electricity emissions factor due to differing energy sources (e.g., Tertiary Filters).
•Influent PS is difficult to compare due to different wet well depths –removed for adjustment.
•Grit Chamber is difficult to compare due to differing equipment and operations –removed for adjustment.
0.0016
0.1979
0.0044
0.0449
0.3695
0.0039
0.2233
0.1059
0.1339
0.5063
0.0000
0.1000
0.2000
0.3000
0.4000
0.5000
0.6000
Influent Screening AGS Basins Tertiary Filters UV Disinfection Plant
Me
t
r
i
c
t
o
n
s
C
O
2/M
G
Lake Oswego Comparison WWTP
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
.
p
p
t
/
7
7
//GHG Emissions Baseline Inventory:
Comparison of Secondary Treatment Processes
Compared annual electricity demand for AGS, non-nitrifying/denitrifying Activated Sludge (AS), and Membrane Bioreactor
(MBR). Other factors not included in this analysis that should be considered in a full inventory:
–GHG emissions related to chemical consumption for AS and MBR
–AGS reduces nitrous oxide production (high GWP GHG), compared to AS and MBR
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
MBR Non-Nit/Denit AS AquaNereda AGS
Me
t
r
i
c
T
o
n
s
C
O
2e
p
e
r
M
G
T
r
e
a
t
e
d
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
.
p
p
t
/
8
•Total Estimated GHG Emissions: 1,513 Metric Tons CO2e
•Purchased electricity is the largest GHG emissions source
•Reduction can be achieved by using renewable electricity
•All other sources are considered de minimis relative to electricity
•Comparison of emissions to other WWTPs shows LO WWTF has better or
comparable performance across treatment processes
•In general, LO WWTF has lower emissions per MG treated
•IPS and Grit Chamber include high degree of variability in emissions due to wet well depth,
equipment, and operations
•AGS shows lowest emissions compared to other secondary treatment processes
•AGS also reduces nitrous oxide production AND no chemical consumption, further reducing
GHG emissions associated with this process
8
//Conclusions
420 978
43% -Verified: 20-29% Silver: 30-39% Gold: 40-49% Platinum: >50%
126 200 QUALITY OF LIFE 67 210 NATURAL WORLD
26 26 QL1.1 Improve Community Quality of Life - 22 NW1.1 Preserve Sites of High Ecological Value
12 20 QL1.2 Enhance Public Health and Safety - 20 NW1.2 Provide Wetland and Surface Water Buffers
14 14 QL1.3 Improve Construction Safety - 16 NW1.3 Preserve Prime Farmland
10 12 QL1.4 Minimize Noise and Vibration 18 24 NW1.4 Preserve Undeveloped Land
6 12 QL1.5 Minimize Light Pollution - NA NW2.1 Reclaim Brownfields
8 8 QL1.6 Minimize Construction Impacts 17 24 NW2.2 Manage Stormwater
3 14 QL2.1 Improve Community Mobility and Access 2 12 NW2.3 Reduce Pesticide and Fertilizer Impacts
12 16 QL2.2 Encourage Sustainable Transportation 5 20 NW2.4 Protect Surface and Groundwater Quality
9 14 QL2.3 Improve Access and Wayfinding 2 18 NW3.1 Enhance Functional Habitats
- 18 QL3.1 Advance Equity and Social Justice 7 20 NW3.2 Enhance Wetland and Surface Water Functions
12 18 QL3.2 Preserve Historic and Cultural Resources 1 14 NW3.3 Maintain Floodplain Functions
11 14 QL3.3 Enhance Views and Local Character 12 12 NW3.4 Control Invasive Species
3 14 QL3.4 Enhance Public Space and Amenities 3 8 NW3.5 Protect Soil Health
10 QL0.0 Innovate or Exceed Credit Requirements 10 NW0.0 Innovate or Exceed Credit Requirements
113 182 LEADERSHIP 56 190 CLIMATE RISK
18 18 LD1.1 Provide Effective Leadership and Commitment - 20 CR1.1 Reduce Net Embodied Carbon
18 18 LD1.2 Foster Collaboration and Teamwork 13 26 CR1.2 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
18 18 LD1.3 Provide for Stakeholder Involvement 4 18 CR1.3 Reduce Air Pollutant Emissions
14 18 LD1.4 Pursue By-product Synergies 16 16 CR2.1 Avoid Unsuitable Development
- 18 LD2.1 Establish a Sustainability Management Plan 14 20 CR2.2 Assess Climate Change Vulnerability
16 16 LD2.2 Plan for Sustainable Communities - 26 CR2.3 Evaluate Risk and Resilience
12 12 LD2.3 Plan for Long-Term Monitoring and Maintenance - 20 CR2.4 Establish Resilience Goals and Strategies
2 14 LD2.4 Plan for End-of-Life - 26 CR2.5 Maximize Resilience
6 20 LD3.1 Stimulate Economic Prosperity and Development 9 18 CR2.6 Improve Infrastructure Integration
2 16 LD3.2 Develop Local Skills and Capabilities 10 CR0.0 Innovate or Exceed Credit Requirements
7 14 LD3.3 Conduct a Life-Cycle Economic Evaluation
10 LD0.0 Innovate or Exceed Credit Requirements
58 196 RESOURCE ALLOCATION
- 12 RA1.1 Support Sustainable Procurement Practices
- 16 RA1.2 Use Recycled Materials
7 14 RA1.3 Reduce Operational Waste
4 16 RA1.4 Reduce Construction Waste
2 8 RA1.5 Balance Earthwork On Site
12 26 RA2.1 Reduce Operational Energy Consumption
- 12 RA2.2 Reduce Construction Energy Consumption
5 24 RA2.3 Use Renewable Energy
6 14 RA2.4 Commission and Monitor Energy Systems
12 12 RA3.1 Preserve Water Resources
9 22 RA3.2 Reduce Operational Water Consumption
- 8 RA3.3 Reduce Construction Water Consumption
1 12 RA3.4 Monitor Water Systems
10 RA0.0 Innovate or Exceed Credit Requirements
ENVISION V3 SCORECARD
Gold Rating
Monday, September 11, 2023
Fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
P
o
i
n
t
s
ENVISION V3 SCORECARD SUMMARY
Lake Oswego WWTF: Gold Rating
Monday, September 11, 2023
Fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
P
o
i
n
t
s
Note:High Priority Credits are highlighted in RED.Note:High Priority Credits are highlighted in RED.
Attachment 2 - Envision Assessment
Envision Rating System
Pre‐Assessment Checklist
420 978
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
QUALITY OF LIFE 126 200
A Has the project team identified and taken into account community needs, goals, and
issues?
Documentation that the project team has located and reviewed the most
recent community planning information and assessed relevant community
needs, goals, and/or issues. For example, meeting minutes with key
stakeholders, community leaders, and decision makers; letters; and
memoranda.
Yes
B Does the project meet or support the needs and goals of the host and/or affected
communities?
Evidence showing a comparison of the project vision and goals to the needs,
goals, and/or issues of the community.Yes
C Has the project team assessed the social impacts the project will have on the host
and affected communities’ quality of life?
Assessing, identifying and evaluating the positive and negative social impacts
of the project on affected communities’ quality of life (e.g., a social impact
assessment). Expectations for the depth and breadth of documentation are
commensurate with the scale of the project and its impact on the broader
community. Informal assessments are acceptable for small projects,
provided that project teams present evidence supporting their conclusions.
Yes
D Have the affected communities been meaningfully engaged in identifying how the
project meets community needs and/or goals?
Documentation of processes for collecting, evaluating, and incorporating
community input into the planning and design process (e.g., meetings,
design charrettes, and communications with representatives of affected
communities).
Yes
E Has the project team addressed negative social impacts?
Evidence showing the extent to which options for mitigating negative impacts
were identified and prioritized, and reasonable changes to the project made.
Strategies for mitigating negative impacts should follow a hierarchy
prioritizing avoidance, minimization, restoration, and offsetting.
Yes
F Are the affected communities satisfied that the project addresses their needs and
goals as well as mitigates negative impacts?
1. Acknowledgments and endorsements by the community that the design
participation process was helpful and that their input was appropriately
assessed and incorporated into project design.
2. Documentation of input and agreement from key stakeholders, community
leaders, and/or decision makers regarding the impact assessment and
planned action(s) (e.g., community satisfaction surveys, interviews with
representatives of affected communities, comments and reactions from
social media platforms). Specific statements about critical issues or actions
taken within the project are better indicators of a true understanding of the
project’s impacts than general endorsements of the project as a whole.
Evidence of community satisfaction and endorsement of plans includes:
a. Community endorsement of the project team’s assessment of their needs
or goals per criterion A.
b. Community endorsement that the project as proposed will address their
needs or goals per criterion B.
c. Documentation that the community understands and accepts potential
impacts of the project per criterion C.
d. Community endorsement of project strategies to mitigate negative impacts
per criterion D.
Yes
G Does the project proactively address long-term social, economic, or environmental
changes that impact quality of life?
1. Documentation of long-term social, economic, or environmental
changes/trends that may impact community goals and needs over time (e.g.,
aging population, economic transitions, or the degradation of the
environment and ecosystem services). Note that social, economic, and
environmental shifts are often connected. The degradation of the
environment in a coastal community dependent on tourism and fishing
negatively impacts the economy, which can lead to social impacts such as
shrinking population. Consequently, the quality of life of the community is put
at risk.
2. Documentation demonstrating how the project will proactively address
one or more of these changes/trends.
3. Documentation demonstrating how the project represents a smart long-
term investment for the community’s future.
Yes
A Does the project meet all health and safety regulations and laws for operations?
Documentation that the design and operation of the project are, or will be,
compliant with all relevant health and safety regulations and laws.Yes
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
P
o
i
n
t
s
26
ENVISION V3 SCORECARD
Monday, September 11, 2023
00Yes
QL1.1 Improve
Community Quality of
Life
Lake Oswego WWTF
Fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
26
Note:High Priority Credits are highlighted in RED.
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
B Has the project exceeded minimum legal health and safety requirements as
established by regulations and laws?
1. Documentation of actions taken, beyond what is minimally required by law,
to improve health and/or safety during project operations. Project teams may
include cases where the project owner has implemented policies that exceed
regulations. Note that siting the project to avoid or minimize risks to health or
safety may be included. However, documentation must demonstrate these
siting decisions were intentional.
2. Index of health and safety improvements identifying improvements to
project operations.
3. Project teams may choose to include a detailed narrative of decision
making focused on critical health and safety risks that represent the largest
or most likely potential impacts for the project, supported by more general
documentation indicating how project features reduce these risks.
Yes
C Does the project include health and safety improvements for the immediate
surroundings?
Index of health and safety improvements identifying improvements to the
project’s immediate surroundings (e.g., protected areas or elevated
walkways for pedestrians, clear lines of sight to traffic, improved lighting,
etc.). Improvements may include risk reduction strategies. Note that siting the
project to avoid or minimize risks to the immediate surroundings may be
included. However, documentation must demonstrate these siting decisions
were intentional.
Yes
D Does the project include health and safety improvements for the broader host or
affected communities?
Index of health and safety improvements identifying improvements to the
broader host or affected communities (e.g., reduced pollution in surface
waters, higher water quality, better air quality, access to healthy activities,
access to health services, etc.). Note that siting the project to avoid or
minimize risks to the broader affected communities may be included.
Examples may also include the project’s ability to reduce external risks (e.g.,
a park that can be used for flood control). However, documentation must
demonstrate these decisions were intentional.
Yes
E Can the project team demonstrate that health and safety risks and impacts are not
disproportionately borne by one community over another?
1. Documentation demonstrating that health and safety risks and impacts are
not disproportionately borne by a community. Examples may include site
maps showing areas of risk or impact overlaid with key demographic data.
This evaluation should consider historic factors of equity and social justice
within the project context. This is also commonly referred to as
“environmental justice.”
2. Documentation that mitigation measures were proportionately distributed
to communities most impacted by the project.
Opportunity
F Will the project provide critical infrastructure services to communities experiencing,
or at risk of experiencing, imminent negative health and/or personal safety impacts?
1. Documentation of how the community is currently experiencing or is at risk
of experiencing health and/or safety impacts (e.g., contaminated drinking
water).
2. Documentation of how the project will provide the critical infrastructure
services necessary to resolve, or significantly reduce, the impacts. The scale
of impact must be at the community level and commensurate with the scope
and size of the project. Projects cannot receive the Restorative level for
eliminating or reducing health and/or safety impacts solely within the project
boundary.
Yes
A Have the project owner and contractor (GC/CM) made strong commitments to
monitoring and improving health and safety?
1. Documentation that owners and contractors implemented a proactive
safety rewards program to support outstanding safety performance.
2. Documentation that the contractors developed a program/requirements to
ensure that their subcontractors maintain a high level of safety per the
contract.
3. Documentation that the contractor’s senior managers are engaged in the
project safety program and conduct safety observations and inspections as
part of their standard duties.
4. Documentation through commitments that safety is a core concern.
Yes
B Does the project include reliable feedback mechanisms to identify risks, conduct
hazard analyses, and communicate hazards to personnel?
1. Documentation that the owner and contractors developed a proactive
investigative process that focuses on root cause and corrective actions vs.
disciplinary actions and financial penalties.
2. Documentation that contractors have a proactive injury management
system that supports efficient, effective and timely treatment of their
employees injured on the job site.
3. Documentation that owners and contractors have an incident review
process that involves all levels of management to validate corrective
measures to minimize future injuries and incidents on the job site
4. Documentation that contractors develop “lessons learned” reports that
allow other contractors and projects the opportunity to review the fact-finding
of an incident and implement processes and procedures to minimize similar
incidents on the job site.
Yes
C Does the project include safety or security training requirements for personnel?
1. Documentation of safety and/or security competency training programs,
either online or in person, for field personnel, including type of training
provided and how they specifically target health and safety. Training may
include task-specific safety training or general awareness training.
2. Documentation of minimum training requirements for health and safety
programs such as occupational safety and health, first aid, CPR, emergency
response, active shooter training, or equivalent.
Yes
20
14
Protect and enhance community
health and safety during
operation.
Measures taken to increase
safety and provide health
benefits on the project site,
surrounding sites, and the
broader community in a just
and equitable manner.
Yes
YesEnhance public and worker
safety during construction.
Commitments and measures
to monitor safety, provide
feedback mechanisms, train
personnel, establish security
plans, and make health
programs available.
QL1.2 Enhance Public
Health and Safety
QL1.3 Improve
Construction Safety
12
14
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
D Does the project include a comprehensive security plan to protect workers, the
public, and sensitive information?
1. Documentation that the owner and contractor have a specific site and
project security plan. This plan may include, but is not limited to, contractor
background checks on personnel working on the project, and 24-hour
security monitoring on the project (physical/electronic). The security plan
should be appropriate to the size and scope of the project.
2. For small projects (under $5 million in cost), owners and contractors may
substitute general site security policies for the site-specific plan.
Yes
E Does the project include health and/or well-being programs?
1. Documentation that the project provides health and/or well-being
programs beyond the specific activities associated with project delivery. This
may include, but is not limited to, health screenings for workers, nutrition or
exercise workshops, and/or free vaccinations.
Yes
A Has the project team assessed the potential for operational noise impacts on the
surrounding community and/or environment?
1. Index of all potential noise generation sources related to the project,
including the potential for noise-generating vibrations when applicable.
2. Assessment of impacts generated as a result of the project noise and
vibrations. This should include, when applicable, increased vehicle or
pedestrian noise generated as a result of the project. This should also
include potential noise-generating vibrations.
Yes
B Has the project mitigated noise generated as a result of the project?
1. Documentation of all noise mitigation measures used throughout the
project. Examples may include drawings and specifications indicating
equipment is inherently quieter than typical (e.g., electric motors rather than
combustion engines) or equipment has been modified to reduce noise and
vibrations at their source. Noise mitigation may include a variety of strategies,
including but not limited to minimizing noise generation, siting to reduce
noise impacts, natural vegetation and landscaping buffers, and/or structural
controls.
2. Narrative explaining how mitigation measures follow a hierarchy that
prioritizes avoidance, minimization, source abatement, receptor abatement,
and compensation/offsetting.
Yes
C Does the project set or adopt target noise levels?
1. Documentation that the project has adopted or set target noise levels for
communities potentially affected by project noise.
2. Evidence that noise generated as a result of the project will not exceed the
target noise levels for impacted communities. Note that these targets are the
maximum acceptable noise levels for the receiving communities (people or
animals) and should include existing ambient noise levels.
Yes
D Has the project team engaged impacted stakeholders on issues of noise and
vibration impacts, mitigation strategies, and target levels?
1. Evidence of community engagement in understanding noise impacts and
the development of operational noise targets and mitigation strategies.Yes
E To what extent will the project maintain or reduce existing noise levels? Select one
of the following:
1. Analyses and documentation of baseline and anticipated operational noise
and vibration levels. In certain cases, project teams may demonstrate why a
baseline noise level is not necessary in order to determine credit
achievement.
2. Documentation that mitigation measures implemented on the project are
sufficient to have no noticeable (to the human ear) noise increase within the
surrounding community beyond existing conditions.
OR
Documentation that mitigation measures implemented on the project are
sufficient to noticeably (to the human ear) reduce noise within the
surrounding community beyond existing conditions.
Yes
#REF!Noise reduction strategies and controls are sufficient to reduce noise within the
surrounding community beyond existing conditions.
A Has the project team conducted an assessment of lighting needs and impacts for
the project?
1. A site map indicating lighting needs and potential impacts on the project
site and surrounding areas. Site map specifically identifies populated areas
and natural habitats.
2. Assessment of how lighting may impact people, flora, and/or fauna in the
area.
Yes
B Has the project implemented strategies to reduce light pollution?
1. Documentation indicating that light pollution reduction strategies were
assessed and considered according to the following prioritization:
a. Avoidance: identifying where lighting may not be needed.
b. Minimization: determining the minimum lighting necessary to meet safety
and performance requirements.
c. Protection: restricting light spillage to sensitive areas or directing light only
to where it is needed.
d. Offsetting: compensating for lighting in one location by removing lighting in
another location.
2. Site map indicating location and type of each lighting strategy deployed.
Yes
12 Yes
Minimize noise and vibrations
during operations to maintain
and improve community
livability.
The extent that operational
noise and vibration is
assessed and mitigated, and
target levels achieved.
QL1.4 Minimize Noise
and Vibration 10
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
C Has the project developed a lighting plan establishing lighting zones?
1. A lighting plan for the project including the establishment of lighting zones,
with each zone addressing at minimum the following: lighting goals; safety
and security needs; environmental conservation; energy efficiency; and
reducing lighting when no longer needed.
Whereas criterion B may include isolated efforts to reduce light pollution, the
intent of criterion C is to incorporate these actions under a more
comprehensive review of lighting needs in order to maximize performance.
Yes
D Will luminaires prevent light emission above 90 degrees?
1. Location and type of each luminaire.
2. Documentation that each luminaire type restricts light to below 90
degrees.
Yes
E Do all project lights meet backlight, uplight, and glare (BUG) requirements for their
respective lighting zones?
1. Location and BUG rating for each luminaire. If luminaires do not have a
BUG rating, projects may also provide calculations demonstrating that
luminaires meet BUG requirements for backlight, uplight, and glare based on
IES and IDA standards.
2. Worksheet demonstrating that BUG ratings meet lighting zone
requirements.
Opportunity
F Does the project involve the removal or retrofitting of existing lighting so as to
significantly reduce overall existing lighting?
1. Documentation that existing lighting will be removed or retrofitted as a
result of the project. Significant reductions are generally considered to be
greater than 10% of total lighting.
No
A Has the project implemented a construction management plan or policies to
address construction impacts?
1. Documentation of a construction management plan or policies.
2. Documentation that the construction management plan or policies
address concerns of stakeholders.
Yes
B Does the construction management plan mitigate noise and/or vibrations?
1. Documentation of a management plan or policies to mitigate impacts of
construction noise and/or vibrations to the extent feasible. Specifications for
minimizing construction noise and vibration should meet or exceed accepted
local practices. Programs should include details on the expected sources of
significant noise and vibration, how the effects of those sources will be
minimized, how noise and vibration will be monitored, and what corrective
actions will be taken if specified levels are exceeded.
2. Documentation that the construction noise management plan includes
stakeholder engagement and mechanisms for communities to report
complaints. Documentation may include corrective actions taken in response
to stakeholder reporting.
Yes
C Does the construction management plan address safety and wayfinding for
pedestrians and vehicles during construction?1. Specifications of requirements and procedures for the contractor.Yes
D Does the construction management plan maintain access to public space and
amenities during construction?
1. Documentation of strategies to:
a. Limit disruption and maintain access to public space and amenities during
construction within the boundaries of safety
b. Limit interruption of service
c. Limit restrictions to public space and amenities
Note that moving access points and establishing detours is allowed so long
as a similar level of service is provided. Applicants may also demonstrate that
access to public space or amenities is not impacted by the project.
Yes
E Does the construction management plan address distracting or intrusive lighting
during construction?
1. Documentation that, to the extent feasible while maintaining safety, the
project has sought to minimize distracting or intrusive lighting during
construction.
Yes
F Does the construction management plan or policies include robust feedback
mechanisms and performance monitoring and reporting for construction impacts?
1. Documentation that there are feedback mechanisms in place for receiving
and responding to public and stakeholder concerns during construction. The
construction contractor is expected to work with affected neighbors to
develop construction plans as well as monitoring and corrective action
programs.
2. Documentation of programs to monitor and inform impacted stakeholders
on project performance in addressing construction impacts.
Yes
A Is the project consistent with local transportation plans?
1. Documentation demonstrating consistency with local and regional
transportation plans. When applicable, documentation may include an
amendment to the transportation plan(s).
Yes
B Has the project team obtained input from the community and key stakeholders
regarding issues of mobility and access?
1. Documentation (e.g., reports, memoranda, and/or minutes) of meetings
with the community and key stakeholders (e.g., community officials or
managers and operators covering access to adjacent facilities, amenities,
and transportation hubs).
2. Records of decisions made and actions taken.
Yes
C Does the project include strategies to increase capacity, manage congestion,
reduce vehicle distance traveled, or lower accident rates?
1. Reports documenting access and mobility principles, concepts,
requirements, and expected outcomes of the project.
2. Documentation of how the project increases transportation capacity,
efficiency (e.g., reduced congestion and/or vehicle distance traveled), or
quality (lower accident rates).
Yes
12
8
Yes
Yes
Extent of issues addressed
through construction
management plans.
QL1.5 Minimize Light
Pollution
QL1.6 Minimize
Construction Impacts
Reduce backlight, uplight, and
glare without jeopardizing safety
during operations.
Lighting meets backlight,
uplight, and glare
requirements for lighting
zones.
Minimize or eliminate the
temporary inconveniences
associated with construction.
6
8
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
D Has the project team worked with the community to expand mobility and access
options and/or incorporate complete streets policies?
1. Assessment of the availability, feasibility, and use of transportation options
(e.g., rail, water, active transportation, or mass transportation access).
2. Documentation of how the project expands mobility and access options,
including a rationale for making or not making changes to transportation
modes.
3. When applicable, reports demonstrating the use of complete streets
policies and guidelines.
No
E Has the project team considered the long-term mobility and access needs of the
community?
1. Documentation of the long-term mobility and access needs of the
community (e.g., existing studies, reports, memoranda, and/or minutes).
2. Design components showing the extent to which long-term mobility and
access needs and issues were incorporated into the constructed work. For
example, expanding considerations to anticipated traffic flows and volumes,
changes in technology, preferred modes of access, and effects on mobility
and connectivity.
3. Documentation showing how the project addressed the community as a
connected network, including long-term transportation infrastructure
efficiency, walkability, and incentivized transportation efficiency.
Yes
F Does the project create new or restore previous connections between communities?
1. Documentation of meetings with community officials discussing the need
for new connections/reconnections between communities (e.g., reports,
memoranda, and/or minutes).
2. Documentation of how the project provides new or improved connections
between communities in order to increase overall mobility. For example,
connecting housing, jobs, shops, and/or community facilities by utilizing or
improving existing transportation infrastructure.
Yes
A Does the project provide convenient access to active, shared, or mass
transportation options?
1. Map showing pedestrian proximity and accessibility to active, shared, or
mass transportation. The generally accepted standard for walking distance is
0.5 mi/0.8 km, or a 10-minute walk.
Yes
B Is the project configured and designed in such a way to encourage active, shared,
and/or mass transportation options?
1. Documentation demonstrating that beyond the physical proximity to active,
shared, or mass transportation options, the project is configured and
designed to encourage or facilitate their use. Examples may include but are
not limited to:
a. Degree of pedestrian convenience and accessibility encourages site users
to utilize transit options.
b. Restricted parking that encourages choosing transit or active
transportation.
c. Extended contiguous sidewalks, trails and/or bicycle networks connected
to the site and/or the project.
d. Designs that promote security throughout the site via well-lit and clearly
visible pathways.
e. Topography that accommodates a network of walkways and bikeways
converging on or near the project.
f. Providing accessible options beyond regulatory requirements to
accommodate a range of mobility needs.
g. Protection from weather such as covered shelters or walkways.
Yes
C Does the project include programs and facilities that support the use of active
transportation and transit?
1. Documentation of programs and/or facilities designed to support the use
of active, shared, or mass transportation options.
Programs intended to encourage active or shared transportation can include
but are not limited to bicycle sharing stations, mobile apps, marketing
programs, subsidy programs, maintenance programs, or repair programs.
Facilities intended to encourage active or shared transportation can include
but are not limited to secure bike lockers, covered bike racks, and
changing/showering facilities.
Programs designed to encourage the use of mass transportation can include
but are not limited to subsidized fare programs, emergency ride home
services, coordination with ride-sharing companies, off-board ticketing, real-
time arrival information, or mobile apps. Support may also include
coordinating with the local transit agency for new transit services.
Yes
D Does the project contribute to a larger integrated active, shared, or mass
transportation strategy for the community or region?
1. Documentation that the project integrates the transportation
improvements with existing transportation infrastructure and/or a larger
transportation infrastructure strategy (e.g., a transportation master plan).
2. Documentation that the project creates new connections or
rehabilitates/repurposes unused, underused, or previously disconnected
pathways, bikeways, rail, and/or other modes of transportation to enhance
the efficiency, quality, or level of service of the overall network. This should
include site plans or illustrative documents showing new connections.
No
14
16
3
12
Plan the project as part of a
connected network that supports
all transportation modes for the
efficient movement of people,
goods, and services.
The extent to which the
project broadens mode
choices, reduces commute
times, reduces vehicle
distance traveled,
Yes
Yes
Expand accessibility to
sustainable transportation
choices including active, shared,
and/or mass transportation.
The extent to which active,
shared, or mass transportation
options are accessible,
encouraged, and supported as
part of a larger integrated
transportation network.
QL2.1 Improve
Community Mobility
and Access
QL2.2 Encourage
Sustainable
Transportation
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
A Has the project addressed access, safety, and wayfinding for incident management
including evacuation and emergency personnel?
1. Design documents showing plans for access and egress routes for
emergency personnel, users, and occupants.
2. Documentation of the effectiveness of the design for emergency
situations.
Yes
B Does the project utilize access, safety, and signage to protect or minimize impacts
on the surroundings?
1. Documentation of how the project protects nearby sensitive sites (wetland,
cultural sites, etc.) or, in populated/developed areas, separates pedestrian
and non-pedestrian zones enhancing safety and security.
2. Documentation that clear signage and wayfinding techniques are used to
integrate the project with its surroundings. For example, access roads,
bikeways, or pedestrian paths are clearly marked in order to facilitate their
proper use.
Yes
C Does the project provide safe public access points for the benefit of the community?
1. Documentation indicating areas of the project site that are accessible to
the public. Public access may include restrictions.
2. Documentation that areas open to the public are designed with universal
design principles to be inclusive of a broad range of users.
Yes
D Does the project have a positive and transformative impact on community
neighborhood access, safety, and/or wayfinding?
1. Documentation demonstrating that beyond individual site safety features
addressed in criteria A, B, and C, the project itself will improve broader
community or neighborhood safety. For example, formerly abandoned or
restricted areas prone to crime and vandalism are replaced by safe and
accessible spaces that increase community presence and self-monitoring.
No
A Does the stakeholder engagement process take into account the historic context of
equity and social justice within affected communities?
1. Documentation demonstrating an understanding of the historic context of
equity and social justice within the affected communities.
2. Documentation of how the equity and social justice context informed the
stakeholder engagement process.
3. In cases where the project impacts sovereign peoples, especially
indigenous peoples, documentation of how the process specifically
addressed and prioritized engagement of these stakeholders and how
attention was given to developing a relationship of respect and mutual
understanding that supported the autonomy, authority, and rights of these
communities.
Yes
B Has the project team assessed the social impacts the project will have on the host
and affected communities?
1. Documentation of both positive and negative social impacts that
specifically include equity and social justice. The assessment may be part of
a larger environmental and social risk and impact assessment. The scope
and level of effort of the process is relative to the type, scale, and location of
the project (e.g., proximity to population centers).
2. The assessment should include:
a. Direct impacts of the project and associated activities.
b. Impacts from independent secondary development or actions that may
occur as a result of the project.
c. Indirect impacts on resources or services important to the local
community.
3. The social context of the project regarding affected communities should
consider, but may expand upon, demographic data, gender equality, health
data, income rate, education, and level of historic infrastructure investment.
No
C Have key members of the project team made commitments to equity and social
justice within their organizations?
1. Documentation of corporate/organizational policies and commitments
concerning equity and social justice. This should include, but not be limited
to:
a. Nondiscrimination
b. Diversity and inclusion
c. Pay equity
“Key members” of the project team refers to major decision makers involved
in the project, as well as those who act as primary advisors, consultants, or
specialists on behalf of decision makers. This will almost always include the
owner, those who act as lead designers (engineers, architects, landscape
architects, etc.), and those who manage and execute the project through
construction. Duplicative documentation is unnecessary when more than
one of these roles is held by a single entity.
2. In cases where the project may have notable social impacts (e.g., a new
road going through a community), documentation of project-specific
commitments to addressing equity and social justice.
Yes
14
18
9
0
Yes
Yes
Ensure that equity and social
justice are fundamental
considerations within project
processes and decision making.
Degree to which equity and
social justice are included in
stakeholder engagement,
project team commitments,
and decision making.
Design the project to provide
safe and appropriate access in
and/or around the project in a
way that integrates the project
with the surrounding community.
Incorporating and providing
clear access, safety, and
wayfinding measures to
accommodate emergency
services and regular vehicular
or pedestrian traffic.
QL2.3 Improve Access
and Wayfinding
QL3.1 Advance Equity
and Social Justice
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
D Has the project addressed social impacts related to equity and social justice?
1. Documentation of a management program(s) to address equity and social
justice impacts identified in the assessment of social impacts.
2. Documentation of specific decisions, programs, strategies, etc., that were
implemented to address social impacts.
3. Documentation of how impacts and mitigation strategies were prioritized
(e.g., a typical mitigation hierarchy would include avoidance, minimization,
restoration, and compensation).
No
E Will the impacts and benefits of the project be distributed equitably throughout
affected communities?
1. Documentation of how the project does not overly burden one or more
communities with risk or negative impacts while other communities receive
the majority of project benefits.
2. Maps showing the key demographic data identified in the assessment of
social impacts overlaid with areas likely to receive benefits or impacts of the
project.
No
F Has the project team empowered communities to engage in the development
process?
1. Documentation that the project team identified, analyzed, and addressed
barriers to inclusion in the stakeholder engagement process. The
comprehensiveness of the analysis will be assessed relative to the scope and
scale of the project. For large projects, documentation should include the
qualifications of individuals responsible for managing the stakeholder
engagement process.
2. Documentation of how the project specifically targeted underrepresented
communities and higher rates of participation and/or inclusion.
No
G Does the project positively address or correct an existing or historic injustice or
imbalance?
1. Documentation that the project positively addressed or corrected an
existing or historic injustice or imbalance. This may include, but is not limited
to:
a. The provision or improvement of infrastructure services to historically
underserved communities.
b. The removal of existing infrastructure that historically divided or created
barriers within a community.
c. Addressing historic inequality where one community was
disproportionately burdened with negative infrastructure impacts while not
receiving the benefits.
d. Addressing historic socioeconomic trends in infrastructure design,
development, and operation related to inclusion.
No
A Has the project team worked with the community and required regulatory and
resource agencies to identify historic and cultural resources?
1. Documentation of meetings with the community and required regulatory
and resource agencies to identify historic and cultural resources (e.g.,
reports, memoranda, and/or minutes).
2. Index of all historic and/or cultural resources that may be impacted by the
project.
Yes
B Has the project team developed strategies to document, protect, or enhance historic
and cultural resources to the project?
1. Location and design drawings of efforts to mitigate impacts or
demonstrating that the site avoids any historic or cultural impacts
2. Design documents of all strategies to document, protect, enhance or
mitigate impacts. Mitigation efforts should prioritize, in order: avoidance,
minimization, restoration, and offsetting/compensation.
Note that only documenting cultural resources is only acceptable when
resources no longer have the integrity to be preserved. Otherwise project
actions must also include strategies for protection or enhancement.
C. Does the identification of historic/cultural resources extend beyond
registries to identify important parts of the community culture?
Yes
C Does the identification of historic/cultural resources extend beyond registries to
identify important parts of the community culture?
1. Documentation that the identification of historic/cultural resources
extended beyond registries of historic sites.
2. Index of historic or cultural resources not included in historic registries that
may still be significant to the culture of the community. These should be
identified in criterion A and may include, but are not limited to, places, events,
natural features, oral traditions, or local skills.
3. When applicable, documentation of the level of effort that was deployed to
identify important cultural resources of the community even if no relevant
cultural resources were found.
Yes
D Has the project team worked with stakeholders to develop a sensitive design and
approach?
1. Documentation that the stakeholder engagement process included the
identification and discussion of historic/cultural resources.
2. Documentation of how the project plans were informed or approved
during stakeholder engagement, specifically relating to historic/cultural
resources.
Yes
E Does the project avoid all historic/cultural resources or fully preserve/protect their
character-defining features?
1. Documentation of how efforts were sufficient to avoid all historic/cultural
resources or fully preserve/protect their character-defining features.Yes
1812 Yes
Preserve or restore significant
historical and cultural sites and
related resources.
Steps taken to identify,
preserve, or restore cultural
resources.
QL3.2 Preserve
Historic and Cultural
Resources
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
F Does the project enhance or restore threatened or degraded historic/cultural
resources in the community, or add a resource to a protected registry?
1. Documentation of efforts to enhance or restore existing historic and
cultural resources. Examples may include, but are not limited to, rehabilitation
in accordance with the government standards, restoration of lost features
such as a historic landscape or green spaces, upgrade and expansion of
facilities used for cultural events, or publicly accessible educational/museum
sites in accordance with historic/cultural stakeholder wishes.
2. Documentation that work was done in collaboration with historic or cultural
preservationists to ensure that restoration does not damage the quality of the
existing historic and/or cultural resource.
OR
3. Documentation that a resource was added to a protected registry as a
result of the project.
No
A Has the project team made a reasonable determination of community values and
concerns regarding protection and enhancement of views and local character?
1. Plans, drawings, and reports identifying important elements of the site
character including landform or levels, views, natural landscape features,
materials, planting, style/detailing, scale, and landscape/townscape pattern.
2. Existing policies and regulations regarding public views and design
guidelines relevant to the project.
Yes
B Has the project team implemented specific strategies to preserve or enhance views
and local character?
1. Documentation that the strategies take into consideration the preservation
of natural landscape features and balance the need for safety measures and
barriers against the desire for protection or enhancement of views and local
character.
Yes
C Has the project team developed or adopted existing guidelines to preserve views
and local character?
1. Documentation demonstrating that the aesthetic quality of the project in its
context was an important consideration.
2. An inventory of all natural landscape or man-made features to be
protected.
3. An inventory of all view resources to be protected.
AND
4. A plan for addressing public views in the project design. Plans include
identifying and locating the areas to be protected, identifying compatible land
use, setting development standards, and establishing policies for
inappropriate development and land use.
OR
5. Design guidelines adopted or written for the project to preserve public
views and important natural landscape features, and to generally fit with the
local character and context of its surroundings, whether urban or rural.
Yes
D Does the project include a construction management plan to protect important
natural or man-made features?
1. Documentation of the construction management plan that identifies
important natural or man-made features deemed important to views or local
character and how they will be protected during construction. This may
include temporary relocation and restoration.
Yes
E Does the community support actions taken to preserve or enhance views and local
character?
1. Documentation that the stakeholder engagement process specifically
addressed issues of views and local character. Documentation should
include evidence of stakeholder engagement in two key areas:
a. The identification of important views and elements of local character per
criterion A.
b. Approving or informing design features or guidelines to preserve or
enhance views and local character per criteria B and C.
Note that the aesthetic quality of a project is highly subjective. Project teams
should seek to provide honest reporting of both supporting and dissenting
opinions on the project. Assessment is not based on unanimous support but
rather on whether stakeholders were meaningfully engaged and given the
opportunity to voice their acceptance or concerns.
Yes
F Will the project result in the restoration or enhancement of views or local character?
1. Beyond preservation, the project either restores previously lost or
degraded views and elements of local character, or it enhances the
community by creating new features of local character. For example, the
construction of an iconic bridge intended to support the local community’s
sense of identity and local pride. Alternatively, the project may involve the
removal of degraded infrastructure generally considered to be an eyesore on
the natural landscape or blocking valuable views.
No
A Has the project team assessed and mitigated impacts to existing public space
and/or amenities?
1. Assessment of the impact of the project on existing public space and/or
amenities.
2. Documentation of the mitigation strategies used and how they were
prioritized.
3. Evidence that the project will not result in a net loss of public space and
amenities in quantity or quality. In cases of offsetting, demonstrate that the
offsets are of similar or better type and quality and will serve the same
community as the lost resources.
Yes
B Does the stakeholder engagement process specifically address issues of public
space and amenities?
1. Documentation that public space and amenities were specifically included
in the stakeholder engagement process. Examples include, but are not
limited to, letters, memoranda, and meeting minutes with stakeholders
showing stakeholder involvement.
Yes
1411
Preserve or enhance the
physical, natural, and/or
community character of the
project site and its surroundings.
Steps taken to assess valued
community resources,
implement preservation
measures, and determine
overall satisfaction.
YesQL3.3 Enhance Views
and Local Character
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
C Are public stakeholders satisfied with the project plans involving public space and
amenities?
1. Evidence of stakeholder approval of how the project will address impacts
to public space/amenities including, when applicable, the design and access
to new or enhanced public space/amenities.
2. Evidence of stakeholder understanding and acceptance of construction
impacts to public space/amenities, specifically access, during construction.
3. Written approval from officials, if relevant, regarding the project plans
related to public space/amenities.
Yes
D To what extent does the project involve significantly enhancing, creating, or restoring
public space and/or amenities? Select one of the following:
1. Plans and drawings showing the scope and extent of efforts for new or
enhanced public space/amenities.
2. Evidence that the new or newly enhanced public space/amenity is a
significant asset to the local community. For example, the project contributes
to long-term community goals by providing a public park in a neighborhood
identified as lacking sufficient park space.
No
#REF!None
LEADERSHIP 113 182
A
Have the project owner and project team made written commitments
to address the social, environmental, and economic aspects of the
project?
1. Written commitments to address social, environmental, and economic
aspects of the project (i.e., sustainability). For example, contract documents
clearly articulating commitments to address the social, environmental, and
economic aspects of the project, and/or evidence of a chartering, value
engineering, or other relevant design sessions that included key members of
the project team that clearly expressed commitments to sustainability.
Yes
B Is the project supported by a sustainability management policy
commensurate with the scope, scale, and complexity of the project?
1. A sustainability management policy that includes commitments to
achieving improvements in sustainable performance with clear objectives
and targets. The policy references project stakeholders, health and safety
commitments, environmental commitments, and social/community
commitments.
Owner sustainability management policies may be project- or program-
specific or agency/department-wide. However, they must establish
requirements that a project address sustainability and meet performance
targets. Sustainability management policies are more general than a
sustainability management plan, referenced in LD2.1. For example, a
sustainability management plan would include the processes and strategies
by which a sustainability management policy would be implemented on a
specific project.
Yes
C Has the project team periodically revisited project sustainability
commitments throughout project delivery?
1. Project-specific sustainability report(s), or meeting minutes, detailing how
the project will achieve its goals and which key performance indicators will be
used to measure and manage initiatives.
Yes
D Have key members of the project team made organizational
commitments to sustainability?
1. Identification and description of key members of the project team.
2. Documentation of each of the following commitments to sustainability:
a. Organizational sustainability principles and policies. For example,
sustainability reports, preferably either verified or partially verified by an
independent third party, with clearly expressed targets and associated
performance (e.g., Global Reporting Initiative, corporate GHG emissions
reduction targets, corporate energy reduction targets, corporate waste
reduction targets).
b. Recognition of past or ongoing projects, or significant initiatives
undertaken, to improve sustainable performance (e.g., project write-ups,
awards, or third-party recognition received for sustainable performance,
efforts or initiatives to train and/or credential staff in sustainability).
c. Evidence that the organizations involved in the project have sustainability
strategies that are embedded into their business strategy, or evidence of a
clear link between the strategies. For example, illustration or description of
the governance of sustainability within the organizations and clear
demonstration of support and commitment from senior management to
sustainability.
d. Third-party organizational recognition or commitments related to
sustainability (e.g., signatory to the UN Global Compact, listed on the CDP
Climate Performance Leadership Index, listed on the Jantzi Social Index,
listed on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, BCorp certification, JUST
Label, etc.).
Yes
A Was an interdisciplinary collaborative kickoff meeting held early in
the project to define sustainability goals?
1. Identification of the various disciplines or project team roles involved in the
interdisciplinary collaborative process.
2. Documentation of design charrettes, value engineering sessions, or other
meetings to identify opportunities for improving sustainable performance and
reducing design conflicts. Documentation should clearly demonstrate that
meetings were held early in the process.
Yes
14
18
3
18
Improve amenities and publicly
accessible spaces to enhance
community livability.
Plans and commitments to
preserve, conserve, enhance,
and/or restore the defining
elements of the amenity.
Yes
Yes
Provide effective leadership
and commitment to achieve
project sustainability goals.
The degree to which the
project owner and project
team have made general, and
project-specific, sustainability
commitments and instituted
sustainability management
policies.
QL3.4 Enhance Public
Space and Amenities
LD1.1 Provide
Effective Leadership
and Commitment
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
B Has project sustainability performance been enhanced as a result of
the interdisciplinary collaboration?
1. Documentation of project improvements or increased performance that
can be attributed to the interdisciplinary collaborative process.Yes
C Did the project team establish regular interdisciplinary and
collaborative meetings to set and achieve sustainability goals?
1. Documentation of the interdisciplinary project team’s business processes
and management controls in the form of procedures, flowcharts, checklists,
and other documented control measures to achieve more sustainable
outcomes for the project.
2. Documentation demonstrating that interdisciplinary collaborative meetings
extended beyond initial kick-off meetings and were regularly occurring
throughout the process. Documentation should clearly demonstrate that
meetings were held regularly and beyond initial kick-off meetings.
Yes
D
Does the process include construction, operations, or maintenance
stakeholders, for better incorporation of considerations in later
project phases?
1. Documentation that construction, operations and/or maintenance
representatives have participated in the integrated design process.
2. Documentation that the integrated process has improved sustainability
performance in later phases of the project.
Yes
A
Has the project team undertaken a stakeholder mapping exercise to
determine stakeholders? Were primary and secondary stakeholders
identified through a stakeholder mapping process, and stakeholder
concerns and specific objectives for stakeholder engagement
defined?
1. Comprehensive list of potential stakeholders identified, with stakeholder
classification (primary or secondary) and a statement or rationale for
selection.
a. Primary stakeholders are individuals or groups directly impacted by the
project, such as the communities crossed and served by a new road. This
should include stakeholders who could be impacted or affected by the
project during its life-cycle.
b. Secondary stakeholders are individuals or groups indirectly affected by the
project.
2. Evidence that stakeholders were identified and prioritized in a fair and
equitable fashion.
Yes
B
Has the project team analyzed, planned, and executed the
engagement for key project stakeholders? Is there a proactive
stakeholder engagement process established with clear objectives
where: engagement moves beyond education into active dialogue;
stakeholder views are monitored, and a two-way line of
communication is established to reply to inquiries; and sufficient
opportunities are provided for stakeholders to be involved in
decision making?
1. Engagement plans for each stakeholder that consider the issues the
project team needs to address and the method(s) of engagement (e.g.,
some stakeholders may require only one-way communication, while others
may require dialogue and partnership-building engagement such as
consultations, hosting stakeholder advisory panels, soliciting online
feedback, hosting multi-stakeholder forums and partnerships, and/or
convening networks of stakeholders).
a. Stakeholder engagement plans should be proactive. This would be
characterized by outreach and a determination to involve those who will be
affected by, or are very likely to have an active interest in, the project, as
opposed to passive invitations to participation such as public notices with
little or no follow-up to ensure a robust response.
b. Engagement moves beyond education into active dialogue. Stakeholder
views are monitored, and a two-way line of communication is established to
reply to inquiries.
c. Sufficient opportunities are provided for stakeholders to be involved in
decision making. The participation process is transparent with opportunities
to provide meaningful input.
2. Documentation of engagement, which may include letters, meeting
minutes, or memoranda with stakeholders. Documentation shows the issues
that were addressed with stakeholders and their concerns/feedback specific
to the project.
Yes
C Was a lead member of the project team directly involved with
stakeholder groups to understand their needs?
1. Documentation that a lead person from the project team, in addition to any
public involvement lead or manager, worked with stakeholder groups to
understand communication needs and the desire for and scope of
involvement.
Yes
18
18
18
18
Yes
Enhance project sustainability
through interdisciplinary
collaboration and teamwork.
The breadth and inclusivity of
interdisciplinary and
collaborative meetings and the
resulting sustainability
performance enhancements.
Early and sustained stakeholder
engagement and involvement in
project decision making.
Establishment of sound and
meaningful programs for
stakeholder identification,
early and sustained
engagement, and involvement
in project decision making.
Yes
LD1.2 Foster
Collaboration and
Teamwork
LD1.3 Provide for
Stakeholder
Involvement
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
D
Has stakeholder engagement feedback been incorporated into
project plans, design, and/or decision making? Are specific cases in
which public input influenced or validated project outcomes, and
potentially conflicting stakeholder views were evaluated and
addressed equitably during decision making?
1. Documentation showing that feedback raised by stakeholders was
evaluated and prioritized and how feedback changed/impacted/altered the
project plans, design, and/or decision making.
OR
Documentation showing how feedback raised by stakeholders was already
incorporated into the project plans, design, and/or decision making.
2. Supporting evidence that stakeholder feedback was treated fairly and
equitably, according to principles of social and environmental justice,
regardless of race, color, wealth, religion (creed), gender, gender expression,
age, national origin (ancestry), disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or
military status.
Yes
E
Has the project team sought feedback from stakeholders as to their
satisfaction with the engagement process and the resulting
decisions that were made based on their input?
1. Letters or other documentation showing support from stakeholders for the
engagement process undertaken for this project.
2. Letters or other documentation showing support from stakeholders for the
decisions that were made based on their input.
3. In certain cases, documentation may also demonstrate an absence of
significant new stakeholder issues arising as the project advances to final
design and construction.
Yes
F Has the project engaged one or more stakeholders as partners?1. Documentation that one or more stakeholders, having mutual interests or
interdependencies, are identified and engaged as partners.Yes
A Has the project team assessed the availability of either internal or
external excess resources or capacity?
1. Documentation of efforts to identify available resources or capacity within
the project, or project needs that could be met by external resources or
capacity. Excess resources or waste may include more than physical waste
streams. Consideration should include but not be limited to waste materials,
heating or cooling, financial capacity, land area/space, or
management/personnel capacity.
Yes
B Has the project team identified opportunities for byproduct synergies
or reuse?
1. Documentation that the project team identified opportunities for byproduct
synergies or reuse. This can include finding a beneficial reuse for the
project’s waste or excess resources, or the project’s beneficial reuse of
external waste or excess resources. Project teams should also consider
ecosystem services where project waste or excess resources can support
natural systems, or where natural systems can process and remove project
waste.
Yes
C Has the project team actively pursued a byproduct synergy or
reuse?
1. Documentation that serious overtures were made to potential candidates.
Achieving byproduct synergies is not always possible. The intent of this
criterion is to recognize projects that attempted to implement a byproduct
reuse into the project but were unable due to unavoidable external factors.
-
D
Does the project include a byproduct synergy by utilizing unwanted
excess resources or finding destinations for the beneficial reuse of
unwanted excess resources? Select one of the following:
1. Documentation that the project includes a byproduct synergy, which is a
direct exchange of otherwise unwanted resources. Byproducts may be
physical waste streams, emissions, or even energy (heat/electricity).
2. Determination of the nature of the byproduct reuse:
a. Short-term/one-time (e.g., during construction or for a limited period of
time).
b. Long-term/regularly recurring (e.g., ongoing reuse throughout project
operations).
Yes
#REF!
The project successfully includes a byproduct synergy or reuse.
Execution is a long-term regularly recurring byproduct
synergy/reuse throughout project operations.
E
Is the project part of a circular economy, whereby the majority of
operational byproducts are beneficially repurposed or the majority of
operational resources consumed are beneficially repurposed?
1. Documentation that the project includes multiple byproduct synergies that
constitute a majority of its waste streams or feedstock. Documentation
should demonstrate that these are part of a broader network of byproduct
reuse and not isolated independent activities.
No
A Are roles and responsibilities for addressing sustainability assigned
to key members of the project team?
1. Organizational charts and documentation showing the persons
responsible for project sustainability issues, their position in the project
organization, and their authority to make project decisions and affect
change.
Yes
B
Has a sustainability management plan been developed to assess
and prioritize the environmental, economic, and social aspects of
the project and set project sustainability goals, objectives, and
targets?
1. Documentation of a sustainability management plan for the project. The
plan may be formal or informal and comprise existing organizational or
programmatic sustainability management plans or policies that were applied
to the project, so long as they are sufficient in scope and scale to address
project performance. If a project-specific plan does not exist, documentation
should clearly link higher-level plans and policies to their application on the
project.
2. An index of all project features related to sustainability.
3. Assessment of the project’s environmental, economic, and social impacts.
This may include the potential for existing non-sustainable conditions to
further deteriorate environmental, economic, or social conditions if left
unaddressed.
4. Prioritized list of project goals, objectives, performance targets that take
into account project importance and the consequences of change.
Alignment of goals, objectives, and targets to community needs and issues.
No
18
18
14
0
Critically reconsider whether
traditional waste streams can be
beneficially reused.
Create a project sustainability
management plan that can
manage the scope, scale, and
complexity of a project seeking
to improve sustainable
performance.
Extent of organizational
policies, authorities,
mechanisms, education, and
business processes put in
place.
The extent to which the project
team works with external
groups to find beneficial use of
waste, excess resources, or
capacity.
Yes
YesLD1.4 Pursue By-
product Synergies
LD2.1 Establish a
Sustainability
Management Plan
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
C
Does the project include a sustainability management plan that
contains sufficient processes and management controls to address
the sustainability goals, objectives, and targets?
1. Documentation of the projects business processes and management
controls in the form of procedures, flowcharts, checklists, audits, corrective
action reports, and other documented control measures.
2. Documentation of a robust plan-do-check-act methodology to identify
priorities evaluate progress and make adjustments to continually improve
No
D Was the sustainability management plan implemented and
periodically revisited?
1. Documentation that regular monitoring and reporting of progress against
the plan’s goals and objectives occurred (e.g., meetings or written reports).No
E
Is the project sustainability management plan adaptable, flexible,
and resilient enough to manage changes in the environmental,
social, or economic conditions of the project over its life?
1. Identification of potential areas where changes in key design variables may
impact project performance over time related to sustainability. Evidence that
the plan accounts for these potential changes and is adaptable.
No
A Was sustainability considered during project
selection/identification?
1. Documentation that sustainability indicators or outcomes were factors in
considering project alternatives during project selection/identification in the
earliest phases of project planning.
Yes
B Were alternative analyses conducted on sustainability performance
during project identification?
1. Documentation that the project selection/identification process included
alternative analyses that included sustainability performance assessments.
2. Documentation that alternative analyses included the sustainability
performance of a no-build option in order to determine whether new
infrastructure construction was necessary.
Yes
C Was an assessment conducted of the project’s impacts to broader
long-term community or regional sustainability?
1. Documentation that early planning assessments considered the broader
impacts of the project on the long-term sustainability of the community or
region.
Yes
D Is the project part of a comprehensive sustainable development
plan?
1. Documentation that the project is part of a broader community-wide
sustainable development plan. If not clearly identified as a sustainable plan,
documentation should include how the development plan advances
sustainability objectives.
Yes
E Does the project address an inherently unsustainable condition
within the community or region?
1. Documentation that the project addresses or corrects an existing
unsustainable condition within the community (e.g., nonrenewable resource
consumption, water overuse, or environmental contamination).
Yes
A Has the project team considered how to reduce ongoing operational
impacts?
1. Documentation of strategies intended to reduce the negative impacts of
ongoing operations and maintenance. This may include but are not limited to
better design, durable longer-lasting materials, ease of access for
maintenance and repair, or minimal disruption to users and affected
communities.
Yes
B Is there a clear and comprehensive plan in place for long-term
monitoring and maintenance of the completed project?1. Plans for long-term monitoring and maintenance of the completed project.Yes
C Has the monitoring and maintenance plan been communicated with
operations and maintenance staff?
1. Documentation that the monitoring and maintenance plan has been
communicated and delivered to the staff responsible for ongoing operations,
monitoring, and maintenance.
Yes
D
Have sufficient resources been allocated for long-term monitoring
and maintenance of the completed project and appropriate training
been conducted?
1. Designations of the persons or organizations assigned to monitor and
maintain the completed project.
2. Explanation of how funding will be allocated, set aside, and maintained at
sufficient levels to fund necessary monitoring and maintenance.
3. Documentation or plans showing that these resources will be in place
following delivery of the project.
4. Documentation of meetings and/or training sessions intended to ensure a
successful transition into operations.
Yes
E Is there a plan in place to re-evaluate and modify the maintenance
plan based on monitored data?1. Schedule for re-evaluating the monitoring and maintenance plan.Yes
A Has the project team developed an end-of-life plan?
1. Base case for project useful life (in years).
2. Documentation of operations and maintenance documents including the
end-of-life plan. The plan includes at minimum the timeline and frequency for
replacement or refurbishment of all major components, as well as
considerations for the ultimate decommissioning, deconstruction, or
replacement of the project.
Yes
B Has the project team evaluated opportunities to extend the project’s
useful life or beneficially repurpose the project after end-of-life?
1. Estimates of the relevant future demands, loads, or other requirements on
the infrastructure system.
2. Documentation of how the overall design will allow for expansion,
reconfiguration, and/or multiple uses
OR
Documentation of how the project can feasibly and beneficially be
repurposed at the end of its useful life.
Yes
C Has the project team assessed potential social, environmental, and
economic end-of-life impacts?
1. Documentation estimating potential impacts associated with the project.
Assessment should cover social, environmental, and economic impacts.No14
16
12
2
16
12
Yes
Incorporate sustainability
principles into project
selection/identification in order to
develop the most sustainable
project for the community.
The degree to which project
selection/identification
includes sustainability
performance assessments
and is part of a larger
sustainable development plan.
Ensure that the project team is
informed by an understanding of
the full impacts and costs of the
project’s end-of-life.
Yes
The degree to which the
project team analyzes, and
communicates with
stakeholders, the end-of-life
impacts, cost, and value.
Yes
Comprehensiveness of long-
term monitoring and
maintenance plans,
implementation goals, and
commitment of resources to
fund the activities.
Put in place plans, processes,
and personnel sufficient to
ensure that long-term
sustainable protection,
mitigation, and enhancement
measures are incorporated into
the project.
LD2.2 Plan for
Sustainable
Communities
LD2.3 Plan for Long-
Term Monitoring and
Maintenance
LD2.4 Plan for End-of-
Life
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
D Has the project team evaluated the costs and salvage value of the
project’s deconstruction, decommissioning, or replacement?
1. Results of the analysis identifying end-of-life costs and ultimate salvage
value. Submission should indicate whether costs are calculated in future or
present values.
Yes
E Has the project team proactively engaged stakeholders in end-of-life
planning?
1. Documentation demonstrating that end-of-life costs and impacts were
incorporated into the stakeholder engagement process and that the
community was engaged in considering end-of-life options for the project.
Yes
A Does the project create a significant number of new jobs during its
design, construction, and operation?
1. Calculations showing the number and type of new jobs created during the
design, construction, and operation of the project that benefit the local
economy. In this case, “local’ is relative to the project scale and may even be
“state/provincial” or “national” for large projects. Calculations should
distinguish between direct and indirect jobs.
2. Explanation of the impact of these jobs on the local economy relative to
the project size.
Yes
B Does the project provide new operating capacity for business,
industry, or the public?
1. Documentation showing how the project expands, or increases the quality
of, operating capacity for business, industry, or the public (e.g., cultural
and/or recreational facilities).
2. Official documents such as community plans, assessments, meeting
minutes, or letters from community leaders or decision makers that confirm
the project benefits to business, industry, or the public.
Yes
C
Does the project provide additional access, increase the number of
choices, and/or increase the quality of infrastructure services for
business, industry, or the public?
1. Documentation of how the project provides additional access, increases
the number of choices, and/or increases the quality of infrastructure services.
2. Analyses showing how additional access, choices, or quality of services
will provide benefits to the local
Yes
D
Does the project improve community attractiveness for business,
industry, or the public by generally improving the socioeconomic
conditions of the community?
1. Documentation of how the project improves community attractiveness for
business, industry, or the public by generally improving the socioeconomic
conditions of the community.
2. Analyses showing how improved community attractiveness to business,
industry, or their workforce as a result of the project will benefit local
economic development.
No
E Will the project stimulate economic prosperity and further economic
development?
1. Documentation of how the project will have economic impacts beyond its
own scope. For example, a port expansion that will provide benefits to
industries throughout a region, or public spaces that will revitalize community
property values.
2. Analyses showing how the project is likely to cause systemic change in
the local economy. Note that while the scale of economic impact is
considered relative to the size of the project, broader economic impacts
beyond the project design, construction, and operation may not be
demonstrable for very small projects.
3. Documentation that the project’s projected impact on future economic
development has factored into changing social, economic, and
environmental trends. This may include, but is not limited to, changing
demographics of the community, growing or shrinking tax bases, and
environmental degradation or climate change.
Opportunity
A Will the project include training programs for local skill
development?
1. Evidence of training programs associated with the project. Note that pre-
existing internships or internships of limited scope (1-3 people) do not qualify
as training “programs.”
Alternative compliance path for small projects for which it is impractical to
have independent training programs: demonstrate that the infrastructure
owner has extensive or notable training programs. Documentation must still
demonstrate relevance of these training programs to the project.
Yes
B
Has the project team identified skill or capability gaps in the local
workforce and targeted training programs to address them? Select
one of the following:
1. Documentation of the skill or capability gaps identified (for example,
inexperience in deploying sustainable technologies, best practices, or new
methods).
2. Evidence of training programs that specifically target identified gaps.
Alternative compliance path for small projects for which it is impractical to
have independent training program: demonstrate that the infrastructure
owner has extensive or notable training programs. Programs must still meet
criteria requirements.
Opportunity
#REF!None
C Will training, education, or skill development programs continue
after project delivery?
1. Documentation of commitments or programs by the project owner or
operator to deliver training, education, or skill development programs after
construction is completed. This may include, but is not limited to, community
education and/or awareness training programs.
Yes
20
16
6
2
Expand the knowledge, skills,
and capacity of the community
workforce to improve their ability
to grow and develop.
Yes
The extent of job creation,
increased operating capacity,
access, quality, and/or
improved socioeconomic
conditions.
Support economic prosperity
and sustainable development,
including job growth, capacity
building, productivity, business
attractiveness, and livability.
Yes
The inclusion of current and
future training programs,
informed by skill or capability
gaps, and targeted to
economically depressed or
underemployed communities.
LD3.1 Stimulate
Economic Prosperity
and Development
LD3.2 Develop Local
Skills and Capabilities
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
D
Will training and skill development programs specifically target
economically depressed, underemployed, or disadvantaged
communities?
1. Documentation of how economically depressed, underemployed, or
disadvantaged communities were determined relative to the local/regional
economic conditions.
2. Evidence that efforts were made to specifically target these communities
for participation in training programs.
Additional
Information
Required
A Has a life-cycle cost analysis been conducted to identify the
financial impacts of the whole project?
1. A narrative description that is clearly and concisely written for reviewers
with limited economic expertise to understand. Project teams should
describe the proposed project and expected costs. To the greatest extent
possible, it should identify evidence-based practices as the basis for the
analysis.
2. Documentation of the life-cycle cost analysis, including assumptions, data
sources, and methodology. The methodology is to follow best practices,
including national or international guidance where appropriate/available. The
analysis must be conducted over a consistent time period for all alternatives,
while incorporating discounting techniques to factor in the time-value-of-
money in order to make comparisons on a common basis. The analysis
should at minimum include the following information:
•Project/investment costs (capital costs)
•Replacement costs
•Annual or reoccurring operations and maintenance costs
•Residual value
•Adding financial benefit streams, such as revenues, which offset costs
Yes
B Have life-cycle cost analyses been used to compare alternatives for
at least one major project component?
1. Documentation of the planned use of the financial analysis
and how it impacted the decision-making process or
alternative selected. This should include specific reference
to the inherent design features, technologies, or other
elements that differ from the base case. The base case is
not necessarily always a “do nothing” alternative, but it is
generally the “lowest” capital cost alternative that achieves
some basic utility to the project. In the case of a new design,
the base case could mean a more basic facility design or
one with fewer sustainability-related components.
Yes
C Has the project team mapped the social, environmental, and
financial costs and benefits of the project?
1. Index and quantification of project costs and impacts. In
addition to the data that would have been collected as part
of the life-cycle costs analysis in criterion A, project teams
may consider but are not limited to the following topics to
guide and structure the social and environmental impacts:
• Reductions in mortality, morbidity/
injuries – safety improvements
• Benefit to low- and moderate-income persons and/
or households – distributional impacts
• Enhanced recreational values – increased
biking or walking, exercising, etc.
• Enhanced aesthetics or streetscape – light pollution,
general aesthetics, streetscape enhancements
• Productivity improvements – enhanced thermal comfort,
reduction in respiratory diseases, allergens, air quality, etc.
• Reduced car or truck mileage – congestion, safety,
emissions, road damage, vehicle operating costs
• Noise/odor levels
• Ecosystem and biodiversity effects (e.g., from
wetlands restoration or reforestation)
• Air quality – reduced criteria pollutants from
reduced energy use, vehicle use, embedded energy
in materials, solid waste, among others.
• Water quality – reduced stormwater
runoff, reduced effluent flows
• Water quantity – reduced demand for freshwater
• Climate change – reduced greenhouse gas emissions
(CO2 equivalents) from reduced energy use, vehicle use,
embedded energy in materials, solid waste, among others.
• Resiliency value – value of protection from the effects of
future/repeat disasters or enhanced reliability that reduces
future cost such as damage, displacement, or loss of service.
No
147
Utilize economic analyses to
identify the full economic
implications and the broader
social and environmental
benefits of the project.
The comprehensiveness of
the economic analyses used
to determine the net impacts
of the project, and their use in
assessing alternatives to
inform decision making.
Yes
LD3.3 Conduct a Life-
Cycle Economic
Evaluation
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
D Has a cost benefit analysis been conducted to identify the financial,
social, and environmental impacts of the whole project?
1. Documentation of the cost benefit analysis, including
assumptions, data sources, and methodology. The methodology
is to follow best practices, including national or international
guidance where appropriate/available . The analysis must be
conducted over a consistent time period for all alternatives, while
incorporating discounting techniques to factor in the time-valueof-
money in order to make comparisons on a common basis.
Note that a cost benefit analysis includes all data that would
have been collected as part of a life-cycle cost analysis in criterion
A. There is no one prescribed approach that is recommended
for conducting a cost benefit analysis comparison; however,
project teams may use the following sample generic approach:
• Define base case
• List feasible alternatives
• Specify categories of costs and benefits
• Quantify costs and benefits (as incremental to the base case)
• Monetize costs and benefits
• Identify and incorporate risks into the analysis (this is a best practice
approach to cost benefit analysis, and is optional)
• Discount future cash flows to calculate NPV and other metrics
No
E
Have cost benefit analyses, including financial, environmental, and
social benefits, been used to compare the alternatives for at least
one major project component?
1. Documentation of the planned use of the economic
analysis and how it impacted the decision making
process or alternative selected.
No
RESOURCE ALLOCATIO 58 196
A Has the project team implemented a sustainable procurement policy
or program?
1. Documentation of a sustainable procurement policy that includes
commitments to identify and select manufacturers and/or suppliers that
implement sustainable practices. Program documentation includes a well-
defined process for selecting suppliers and/or manufacturers of materials,
supplies, and equipment, including selection criteria focused on
environmental practices and social responsibility. Examples of qualifying
requirements include but are not limited to:
•Environmental management systems consistent with ISO (International
Organization for Standardization) 14001
•Product-specific type III Environmental Product Declaration (EPD)
conforming to ISO 14025, 14044.
•Third-party verified sustainability program (e.g., Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC), Green Seal, EcoLogo, Underwriters Laboratory, National Biosolids
Partnership (NBP), Concrete Sustainability Council (CSC), etc.)
•Third-party verified corporate sustainability report consistent with the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Report or equivalent.
Note that, given the complex nature of infrastructure procurement, some
flexibility is given to project teams to develop additional sustainable
procurement best practices that are equivalent to, or exceed, the examples
listed above. However, the project team must then justify how their
requirements meet the intent of the credit and maintain parity.
Opportunity
B
To what extent do materials, supplies, equipment, manufacturers,
and suppliers meet sustainable procurement policy/program
requirements? Select one of the following:
1. Calculations of the percentage of the total project materials by cost,
weight, or volume that meet the sustainable procurement policy/program
requirements on social and environmental impacts.
Documentation of the total weight, volume, or cost of materials.
An inventory for all materials being tracked for sustainable procurement
practices, including a description of the material and the manufacturer or
supplier of the material, along with evidence of the disclosure requirements.
Documentation indicating the sustainable procurement requirements were
met.
2. Material/supplier tracking forms and/or spreadsheets; receipts/invoices.
Opportunity
#REF!At least 15% of all project materials, supplies, and equipment meet
the sustainable procurement policy/program requirements.
120 Yes
The extent of sustainable
procurement programs, and
the percentage of materials
sourced from manufacturers
and/or suppliers that
implement sustainable
practices.
Develop sustainable
procurement policies and
programs to source materials
and equipment from
manufacturers and suppliers
that implement sustainable
practices.
RA1.1 Support
Sustainable
Procurement Practices
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
A
To what extent has the project team used recycled materials,
including materials with recycled content and/or reused existing
structures or materials? Select one of the following:
1. Total quantity of materials used on the project by weight, volume, or cost.
2. Inventory of specifications for materials containing recycled content.
Inventory should include the name of the product, the name of the
manufacturer, the weight, volume, or cost of the material, and the
percentage of recycled content (either post-industrial or post-consumer
recycled content).
3. Calculations of percentage of reused or recycled materials by weight,
volume, or cost.
To calculate materials with recycled content, multiply the material weight,
volume, or cost by the percentage of recycled content.
Mechanical, electrical, water equipment, and their components may be
excluded from the calculations. In these instances, the most efficient
equipment should be specified.
Calculations do not include plants, soils, rocks, or water.
4. Inventory of existing materials or structures that have been reused.
Design documents showing the location and weight, volume, or cost of
reused structures or materials. In determining weight, volume, or cost, the
project team may refer to standard equivalents.
In order to meet the intent of this credit, the project team must be able to
demonstrate an intentional choice to salvage materials or structures that
might otherwise have been sent to landfills and/or replaced. In addition, they
must demonstrate that such action is within the scope of the project. For
example, a project to resurface an airport runway cannot claim the entirety of
the surrounding airport as “reused” materials. However, a project that
intentionally chooses to refurbish an existing bridge, rather than replace it,
may count the retained components of the existing bridge as “reused.”
Opportunity
#REF!
At least 15% (by weight, volume, or cost) of recycled materials
including materials with recycled content and/or reused existing
structures or materials.
A
Has the project team developed a waste management plan to
decrease project waste and divert waste from landfills during
operation?
1. Documentation of the operational waste management plan,
OR;
Policies, specifications, or contract documents sufficient to address the
diversion/recycling of the project’s operational waste.
Yes
B To what extent has the project team reduced waste or diverted
waste from landfills? Select one of the following:
1. Identification of waste streams that will occur during the operations of the
project (e.g., sludge produced from the treatment of wastewater, byproduct
or residual materials produced as a result of waste to energy facilities).
2. Documentation of how the project was planned or designed in order to
reduce the generation of waste during operations or to divert operational
waste from landfills. Documentation includes waste type and methods to
reduce waste generation.
3. Calculations of estimated total waste reduction measures and percentage
of materials diverted to recycling or reuse. The percentage of diverted waste
should be calculated as the ratio of material diverted from landfills against the
total waste generated during construction or operations. Calculations may be
done by weight, volume, or cost but must remain consistent throughout the
credit.
Waste deemed hazardous should not be included in the total waste
calculations and should be disposed of according to local, state/provincial,
and federal law.
Yes
#REF!
The project is planned or designed to divert at least 50% of
operational waste. Diversion may be a combination of waste
reduction measures and/or sourcing waste to other facilities for
A
Has the project team developed a comprehensive waste
management plan to decrease project waste and divert waste from
landfills during construction?
1. Documentation of the construction waste management plan,
OR;
Policies, specifications, or contract documents indicating a construction
management plan will be developed and implemented.
2. Documentation that the construction management plan was implemented.
Yes
16
14
0
7
Yes
Percentage of project
materials that are reused or
recycled. Plants, soil, rock,
and water are not included in
this credit.
Reduce the use of virgin natural
resources and avoid sending
useful materials to landfills by
specifying reused materials,
including structures, and
material with recycled content.
Yes
Percentage of total
operational waste or
byproducts diverted from
disposal.
Reduce operational waste and
divert waste streams from
disposal to recycling and reuse.
RA1.2 Use Recycled
Materials
RA1.3 Reduce
Operational Waste
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
B To what extent has construction waste been diverted from landfills?
Select one of the following:
1. Policies, specifications, contract documents, or commitments by the
project team to achieve a target construction waste diversion rate.
2. Provide a general description of each type/category of construction and
demolition materials generated, location of receiving agent, and quantity of
waste diverted (by category) in weight (tons) or volume (cubic yards/meters).
3. Calculations of total waste reduction measures and percentage of
materials diverted to recycling or reuse. The percentage of diverted waste
should be calculated as the ratio of material diverted from landfills against the
total waste generated during construction. Calculations may be done by
weight (tons) or volume (cubic yards/meters) but must remain consistent
throughout the credit.
Waste deemed hazardous should not be included in the total waste
calculations and should be disposed of according to local, state/provincial,
and federal law.
Yes
#REF!
During construction at least 75% of waste materials are recycled,
reused, and/or salvaged. Diversion may be a combination of waste-
reduction measures and sourcing waste to other facilities for
A
To what extent has the project team designed the project to balance
cut and fill to reduce the excavated material taken off site? Select
one of the following:
1. Documentation showing how the project balanced cut and fill on site and
calculations of the percentage of excavated materials remaining on site.
2. Documentation showing the destination of any materials transported off
site and their proximity to the project site. For long, linear infrastructure
projects, the center of the radius moves along the site (i.e., the center of the
radius will be at the beginning of the project and move as the project
progresses).
Excavated materials deemed hazardous should not be included in the total
calculations and should be disposed of according to local, state/provincial,
and federal law.
Yes
#REF!
Excavated material moved off site and/or fill brought onto the site
does not exceed 70% of total site soil handling.
OR
100% of fill and excavated materials are sourced or reused within
25 mi/40 km of the site.
A Has the project team determined the estimated annual energy
consumption of the project during operations?
1. Estimates of the annual energy consumption of the project during
operations. Energy data should be presented in standard units. If annual
energy consumption varies, the project team submits the range of estimated
performance over the project life. Energy consumption of the project
includes:
•Energy purchased from the grid
•Energy generated on site
•Fuels used on site by the project
Note that energy generation projects should use energy conversion
efficiency as the measure of energy efficiency, with the goal of increasing the
capture of electrical, mechanical, or thermal energy output of the system.
Similarly, energy distribution projects should calculate reductions in energy
loss, with the goal of achieving better efficiency in energy delivery.
Yes
B To what extent has the project reduced operational energy
consumption? Select one of the following:
1. Calculation of the baseline energy consumption. All energy sources
should be converted into standard units.
2. Submit calculations for the project’s estimated annual energy
consumption over the life of the project. Document the percentage reduction
over the baseline. All energy sources should be converted into standard
units.
Yes
#REF!Operational energy is reduced at least 30%.
A Has the project team conducted planning reviews to reduce energy
consumption during construction?
1. Documentation that one or more planning reviews were conducted to
identify and analyze the potential for reducing energy consumption during
construction.
Opportunity
26
16
8
12
4
2
Percentage of operational
energy reductions achieved.
Divert construction and
demolition waste streams from
disposal to recycling and reuse.
Percentage of total waste
diverted from disposal.
Conserve energy by reducing
overall operational energy
consumption throughout the
project life.
Yes
Percentage of excavated
material retained on site or
nearby.
Minimize the movement of soils
and other excavated materials
off site to reduce transportation
and environmental impacts.
Yes
Yes
RA1.4 Reduce
Construction Waste
RA1.5 Balance
Earthwork On Site
RA2.1 Reduce
Operational Energy
Consumption
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
B
To what extent have energy conservation strategies been
implemented during construction? (strategies are listed in the
Envision Guidance Manual) Select one of the following:
1. Documentation that the project has implemented, or has policies to
implement, energy conservation strategies during construction. Strategies
that meet the credit requirements include:
a. Tier IV construction equipment or Tier III with Best Available Technology
(BAT) for at least 75% of non-road equipment fleet greater than 50
horsepower;
b. Alternative fuels in heavy equipment such as biodiesel for at least 5% of
total fuel consumption;
c. Hybrid or fully electric project vehicles for at least 50% of fleet;
d. Electrified equipment for at least 20% of equipment (vs. gas or diesel
engines);
e. Employee commuting programs with incentives (shuttles to transit, ride-
share programs, biking facilities, etc.);
f. Reduce purchased energy for workstations (construction trailer/office
energy) by 30% for two of the following: (1) lighting; (2) HVAC; (3) plug
loads;
g. Purchase green power (RECs) for 30% of workstation energy
consumption;
h. Offset electrical consumption by generating 5% renewable energy on site
(e.g., solar panels on trailer complex, solar-powered temporary light plant,
solar-powered cameras and variable message sign boards); and
i. Reduce overall fuel consumption by 10% through improved planning and
logistics. Specific strategies may include:
i. Reduce number of deliveries;
ii. Reduce idle times;
iii. On-site reuse of soils or other materials to decrease truck traffic to and
from site (ties into Reduced Excavated Material taken off site);
iv. Reduce on-site trucking – proper logistics planning such as staging
material in close proximity to installation location;
v. Schedule acceleration without additional resource consumption;
vi. Waterborne/rail transportation of materials versus trucking (third-party
distribution or logistics);
vii. On-site plants (concrete plant/asphalt plant) in lieu of trucking material to
the site; and
viii. Prefabrication of design elements.
Opportunity
#REF!The project implements, or has written requirements to implement,
at least two (2) energy reduction strategies.
A To what extent does the project meet electricity or fuel needs from
renewable sources? Select one of the following:
1. Documentation of the anticipated annual output of all renewable sources,
direct renewable electricity purchases, or exports to the grid, and the
resulting overall percentage of renewable energy to total energy
consumption. The latent renewable energy mix within the grid does not
contribute to achievement in this credit. Calculations should be in standard
units of energy (Btu or kJ).
2. Breakdown of renewable energy sources by type. Renewable energy may
include:
•solar energy (thermal heating, both active and passive, and photovoltaic);
•wind (electricity generation);
•water (hydro or tidal for electricity generation);
•biomass (electricity generation or as fuels);
•geothermal (electricity generation or heating and cooling); and
• hydrogen/fuel cells (used as a fuel).
• renewable transportation fuel or electric vehicle use.
Yes
#REF!The project meets 5% of energy needs (electricity and fuel) from
renewable sources.Yes
A
Does the design incorporate advanced integrated monitoring
systems in order to enable more efficient operations? Select one of
the following:
1. Documentation that equipment and/or software are incorporated in the
design to allow detailed monitoring of performance. Design documents and
specifications showing the location, purpose, and type of monitoring
equipment installed. Documentation that the equipment installed is capable
of monitoring all primary project functions, accounting for the required
percentage of energy consumption (e.g., 50%, 75%, 90%).
2. Rationale as to how the monitoring equipment may enable more efficient
operations over the industry norm.
3. Documentation that energy management systems and associated
software are incorporated into the project accounting for the required
percentage of energy consumption (e.g., 50%, 75%, 90%).
Yes
#REF!
The project includes energy monitoring capabilities. Equipment
and/or software are incorporated to allow detailed monitoring of
performance during operation. The equipment is capable of
12
24
0
5
Yes
The number of strategies
implemented on the project
during construction that
reduce energy consumption
and emissions.
Conserve resources and reduce
greenhouse gases and air
pollutant emissions by reducing
energy consumption during
construction.
Extent to which renewable
energy sources are
incorporated.
Meet operational energy needs
through renewable energy
sources.
Yes
RA2.2 Reduce
Construction Energy
Consumption
RA2.3 Use Renewable
Energy
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
B To what extent has a commissioning been conducted? Select one of
the following:
1. Documentation that the project has undergone or will undergo a
commissioning (e.g., specification, tender document, contract document).
2. Documentation that the commissioning was executed and covered
systems responsible for using or generating the required percentage of
energy (e.g., 50%, 75%, 90%).
3. Documentation of the relationship between the owner and the
commissioning agent depending on the level of achievement being pursued.
Note that for Superior, the owner may engage an in-house commissioning
agent so long as they are independent of the planning/design of the project.
For Conserving, an independent third-party agent must be used.
4. Documentation of the commissioning log of issues.
Yes
#REF!
The project conducts an initial commissioning of energy systems
accounting for at least 75% of the total energy
consumption/generation. Commissioning includes a detailed log of
issues.
C Is there a plan for ongoing commissioning of the energy systems
throughout the project’s life?
1. Documentation of a plan for ongoing recommissioning/review of these
systems throughout the expected life of the project.Yes
A Has the project team conducted a watershed assessment?
1. Documentation demonstrating that the project team assessed and
understands the project’s watershed context. Examples include watershed
plans, regional water and wastewater utility plans, climate change reports,
etc. The scope of the watershed assessed should be commensurate with
the scale of the potential impacts of the projects.
2. Documentation of the location, type, quantity, rate of recharge, and quality
of water resources in the watershed.
3. Identification of the source and impacts of water used and the destination
and impacts of wastewater.
Yes
B Has the project team estimated the water usage and wastewater
generation over the life of the project?
1. Calculations showing the estimated water usage and wastewater
generation over the life of the project (gallons/liters).Yes
C Does the project include features to minimize the negative impacts
of water usage, and/or watershed-scale issues?
1. Documentation of design features that will reduce negative impacts of
water usage and/or watershed-scale issues. Project teams should also
consider the indirect ways in which the project may impact water resources.
For example, a project may not consume water itself but may include the
addition of recycled water lines (“purple pipe”) to support water-recycling
systems beyond the project boundary.
2. Documentation of how the design features specifically address issues
identified in the comprehensive water assessment in criterion A.
Yes
D
Does the project have a net-zero impact on the quantity and
availability of fresh surface water and groundwater supplies without
compromising water quality?
1. Calculations demonstrating that the project’s water usage will have no
impact on the quantity and availability of fresh surface water and
groundwater supplies.
2. Documentation clarifying that the project does not compromise water
quality in the watershed.
Yes
E Is the project part of a watershed-level or regional plan?1. Documentation that the project is part of, or contributes to, a larger
watershed level or regional plan intended to improve the watershed.Yes
F Does the project make a direct net-positive improvement to the
watershed?
1. Documentation that the project has a net-positive impact to the watershed
in terms of water quantity and availability or water quality. Examples of
watershed improvements may include improved water quality, better
hydrologic connectivity, or water storage and availability.
Yes
A
Has the project team conducted planning and design reviews to
identify potable water reduction strategies during operation of the
project?
1. Documentation the project team conducted planning and design reviews
to identify potable water reduction strategies during operation of the project.
Example documents may include reports, memoranda, and minutes of
meetings with project teams and owners regarding water reduction
strategies.
Yes
B To what extent has the project reduced potable water use? Select
one of the following:
1. Calculation of the industry baseline for potable water use to be used as a
baseline.
2. Calculations of estimated annual potable water consumption over the life
of the project. Document the percentage reduction over the industry
baseline. Calculations should be converted into standard units such as
gallons or cubic meters. Note, water treatment projects should address this
credit through reducing process water and improved process efficiency.
Yes
#REF!The project reduces potable water use by at least 75%.
14
12
22
6
12
9 Yes
Yes
Yes
Assess and reduce the negative
net impact on fresh water
availability, quantity, and quality
at a watershed scale to
positively impact the region’s
water resources.
The extent to which the
project considers and
contributes to positively
addressing broader watershed
issues.
The inclusion of monitoring
equipment and software, the
extent of commissioning, and
the commissioning agent’s
independence from the
project.
Ensure efficient functioning and
extend useful life by specifying
commissioning and monitoring
of energy systems.
Percentage reduction in
potable water use and overall
Reduce overall water
consumption while encouraging
the use of greywater, recycled
RA2.4 Commission
and Monitor Energy
Systems
RA3.1 Preserve Water
Resources
RA3.2 Reduce
Operational Water
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
C To what extent has the project reduced overall water use (including
potable and nonpotable water)? Select one of the following:
1. Calculation of the industry baseline for overall water use to be used as a
baseline. In some cases, this may be the same calculation as the baseline for
potable water use in criterion B.
2. Calculations of estimated annual total water consumption over the life of
the project, and the percentage reduction over the industry baseline.
Calculations should be converted into standard units such as gallons or
cubic meters.
Note that water treatment projects should address this credit through
reducing process water and improved process efficiency.
Yes
#REF!Overall water use (potable and nonpotable) is reduced by at least
20%.
D Does the project have a net positive impact on water use?
1. Design documents demonstrating that the project achieves a 100%
reduction in potable water use, using no water or meeting water needs
entirely through nonpotable sources, and provides an available source of
usable water (potable or nonpotable) for neighboring projects or
communities to offset their own water needs.
No
A Has the project team conducted planning reviews to reduce water
consumption during construction?
1. Documentation that one or more planning reviews were conducted to
identify and analyze the potential for reducing water consumption during
construction.
Additional
Information
Required
B To what extent have water conservation strategies been
implemented during construction? Select one of the following:
1. Documentation that the project has implemented water conservation
strategies during construction. Strategies that meet the credit requirements
include:
a. High-efficient fixtures in construction trailers or offices (demonstrate a 40%
reduction in usage)
b. Monitoring and management (demonstrate team’s ability to detect leaks
and respond to inefficiencies in the system)
c. Reduce embodied water of materials by reducing waste material (calculate
a 10% reduction in material quantities entering the site as new material)
d. Use alternatives to dust suppression such as dry agents (show 50%
reduction in water usage due to alternative controls)
e. Alternatives for curing concrete (show 50% reduction in water usage due
to alternative controls)
f. Alternatives for truck tire wash stations (show 50% reduction in water
usage due to alternative controls)
g. Reduced embodied water through material selection (permanent and
temporary materials) (Demonstrate how product selection has contributed to
reduced potable water consumption by more than 25%)
h. Stormwater harvesting (show 40% savings by using harvested
stormwater)
i. Greywater or wastewater effluent reuse (show 40% reuse)
j. Dewatering reuse (show 40% reuse/recycling)
2. Calculation of potable water saved (gallons/liters) for each strategy as
compared to not implementing the strategy over the construction duration.
Note that projects may wish to also calculate their cost savings for reduction
measures.
Additional
Information
Required
#REF!At least one (1) potable water conservation strategy is implemented.
A
Does the design incorporate advanced integrated monitoring
systems in order to improve performance? Select one of the
following:
1. Documentation that equipment and/or software are incorporated in the
design to allow detailed monitoring of performance. Performance may
include water quality and/or quantity depending on the function/purpose of
the project. Design documents and specifications showing the location,
purpose, and type of monitoring equipment installed. This may include
design documents and specifications identifying the installation of easily
accessible and clearly labeled water sub-meters. Documentation that the
equipment installed is capable of monitoring all primary project functions,
accounting for the required percentage of water consumption or effluent
(e.g., 50%, 75%, 95%).
Rationale as to how the monitoring equipment may enable improved
performance.
Yes
#REF!The equipment is capable of monitoring all primary project functions,
accounting for at least 50% of water use.
B Does the project include real-time water monitoring?
1. Documentation that water monitoring equipment is capable of delivering
real-time data on water use.
2. Documentation of a plan for using this data to improve water efficiency,
reduce leakage, and conserve water overall.
Yes
22
8
12
9
0
1
Yes
The number of strategies
implemented during
construction that reduce
potable water consumption.
Reduce potable water
consumption during
construction.
Yes
Yes
potable water use and overall
water use.
the use of greywater, recycled
water, and stormwater to meet
water needs.
Extent and capability of water
monitoring equipment and
inclusion of response plans.
Improve operational
performance by including
monitoring capabilities.
Operational Water
Consumption
RA3.3 Reduce
Construction Water
Consumption
RA3.4 Monitor Water
Systems
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
NATURAL WORLD 67 210
A Has the project team identified whether the site contains areas of high ecological
value?
1. Documentation of research undertaken to identify areas of high ecological
value on the site. Research may include, but should extend beyond,
references to local, state/provincial, or federal agencies or organizations
indicating areas of high ecological value on site. Examples may include but
are not limited to: old growth forest; habitats important for threatened or
endangered species; areas within ecosystems that support significant
diversity of species, habitats (native, migratory, breeding, and foraging),
and/or important/rare/unusual geomorphological features/processes; and
areas that are “pristine” or not adversely affected by human activity.
2. Index of areas of high ecological value on or near the site.
Additional
Information
Required
B Has the project mitigated any areas of high ecological value that are disturbed?
Select one of the following:
1. A mitigation plan including:
a. an assessment of impacts to areas of high ecological value including a
calculation of area impacted;
b. measures the project will undertake to monitor, minimize, and mitigate
impacts;
c. the resources that will be made available to implement such measures;
d. alternative actions that the project analyzed, and the reasons why the
project did not adopt such alternatives;
e. additional measures that may be required by regulatory agencies, as
necessary or appropriate.
2. The plan is appropriately designed to meet mitigation goals. The plan
should be prepared by a licensed or similarly qualified professional with
expertise in ecological, natural resources and environmental habitat.
Depending on the context of the project, this requirement may alternatively
be met by regulatory approval of the mitigation plan or by demonstrating that
the plan
meets guidelines set out by the appropriate regulatory body.
3. Site plan showing temporary works and their proximity to sites of
ecological value.
4. Documentation that the capacity of ecological sites was not diminished as
a result of construction activities.
Yes
#REF!None
C Does the project avoid developing or disturbing areas of high ecological value on
site?
1. Documentation showing that no existing areas of high
ecological value will be developed as a result of the project.
2. Documentation demonstrating that areas of high
ecological value will be protected during construction
(e.g., contract documentation, specifications,
contractor standard operating procedures).
Additional
Information
Required
D Does the project preserve an effective protective buffer zone around areas of high
ecological value?
1. A site map illustrating a protective zone for
areas of high ecological value.
2. Documentation demonstrating that the zone
provides effective protection. This should include
the nature and makeup of the buffer zone.
No
E Was the project intentionally sited to avoid areas of high ecological value?
1. Documentation demonstrating to what extent areas of
high ecological value were intentionally avoided.
2. Documentation must show that the owner and the project
team made meaningful efforts to avoid disturbing areas of
high ecological value during the site selection process.
Note that meeting criterion E is an alternative achievement path
for the Conserving level. Achieving Conserving by meeting criterion
E does not require meeting criteria A, C, and D, and vice versa.
No
F Does the project significantly increase the area of high ecological value?
1. Documentation of how areas of high ecological value were increased or
restored. The habitat produced can be part of a protective buffer zone.
Documentation should include a site map outlining locations and a technical
summary describing the methods and materials of restoration.
2. The documentation must be signed by a qualified natural resource
professional who attests to the functionality of the restoration, or approved by
a similarly qualified regulatory body.
No
A Has the project team identified wetlands and surface waters on or near the site?1. Map of wetlands and surface waters in and around the site.Yes
220
Avoidance of high ecological
value sites and establishment
of protective buffer zones.
Avoid placing the project and
temporary works on a site that
has been identified as being of
high ecological value.
Yes
NW1.1 Preserve Sites
of High Ecological
Value
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
B Has the project team determined the type and width of buffer zones necessary to
protect wetlands and surface waters?
1. Calculation of the proposed buffer type and minimum width or acceptance
of Envision minimum width requirements.
2. Documentation that the project team has considered site conditions
including soil type, slope, land use, and vegetation mix in determining the
appropriate buffer width and type.
3. Documentation that the proposed buffer width and type are sufficient to
address: pesticide retention; bank stabilization; sediment control; nutrient
retention; litter and debris; water temperature; terrestrial wildlife; and aquatic
wildlife.
4. Documentation that the project team has considered the cumulative
impacts of acidification and/or eutrophication of the water bodies in the
project design.
Yes
C To what extent has the project implemented protective buffer zones around
wetlands and surface waters? Select one of the following:
1. A site plan showing the final site design, the boundaries of the buffer zone,
and the minimal buffer zone width calculated as the shortest point between
the buffer zone boundary and the identified wetland, waterbody, or shoreline.
2. Minimum widths are followed unless justified by documentation in criterion
B.
3. Documentation that the buffer design matches the level of achievement
requirements. Note that as levels increase, the credit requires that more of
the protective buffer be natural area rather than managed areas (e.g.,
mowed grass). For exceptions, project teams can demonstrate in criterion B
how a larger-managed vegetated buffer might meet the same performance
requirements as a natural buffer of the minimum required width.
No
#REF!None
D Was the project intentionally sited to avoid wetlands and surface waters?
1. Evidence that the project team intentionally avoided siting the project on or
within the minimum buffer widths of wetlands and surface waters. Evidence
should include alternative sites that were seriously considered.
Note that meeting criterion D is an alternative achievement path for the
Conserving level. Achieving Conserving by meeting criterion D does not
require meeting criteria A, B, and C, and vice versa.
No
E Will the project involve returning previously developed or disturbed sites within the
buffer zone to a natural state?
1. Maps and plans of developed areas of the project site that will be returned
to a natural state within the protective buffer zones. Developed areas include
man-made surfaces (e.g., pavement) and/or structures (e.g., facilities).
Project teams may not count returning existing vegetated landscape
(whether constructed or natural) to a natural state as evidence of restorative
actions.
Note that project teams may alternatively demonstrate the recovery of pre-
existing buffer zones that have degraded in quality.
No
A Has the project team assessed the project site for soils identified as prime farmland,
unique farmland, or farmland of importance?
1. Results of government studies and/or soil surveys designating areas of
prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of special importance (e.g.,
USDA, or CLI).
Yes
B To what extent will the project protect or preserve prime farmland, unique farmland,
or farmland or importance? Select one of the following:
1. Provide calculations and plans showing that less than the required
percentage of the project site includes development on farmland. The
remaining avoided farmland must be contiguous and functionally viable to
support farming.
Note that previously developed land (i.e., structures or paved surfaces) can
be excluded from the calculations.
2. Documentation showing that during construction no soils will be stripped
from areas to be preserved as farmland.
Yes
#REF!Less than 5% of the project site is developed or disturbed prime farmland.
C Has the project team mitigated any damage or disturbance to prime farmland,
unique farmland, or farmland of importance?
1. Documentation showing how the disturbed farmland has been mitigated
on site per local jurisdiction standards.
2. For areas permanently disturbed by the constructed project, offsetting
criteria for farmland include:
•Preservation of adjacent or contiguous farmland of similar quality or better.
•Preserved area must equal or exceed area disturbed by the project.
•Preserved land cannot be part of an existing conservation easement.
3. Documentation that a construction management plan includes provisions
for protecting farmland during construction. Documentation includes the full
restoration of sites disturbed as a result of temporary works.
4. For projects that involve temporary disturbance to farmland,
documentation that protection and restoration activities were carried out.
No
D Was the project intentionally sited to avoid prime farmland?
1. Evidence that the project team intentionally avoided siting the project on
prime farmland. Evidence should include alternative sites that were seriously
considered.
Note that meeting criterion D is an alternative achievement path for the
Conserving level. Achieving Conserving by meeting criterion D does not
require meeting criteria A and B, and vice versa.
-
20
16
0
0
Percentage of farmland
avoided or preserved during
development.
Identify and protect soils
designated as prime farmland,
unique farmland, or farmland of
importance.
Yes
Type and quality of natural
buffer zone established
around all wetlands,
shorelines, and waterbodies.
Protect, buffer, enhance, and
restore wetlands, shorelines,
and waterbodies by providing
natural buffer zones, vegetation,
and soil-protection zones.
Yes
NW1.2 Provide
Wetland and Surface
Water Buffers
NW1.3 Preserve Prime
Farmland
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
A To what extent is the project located on previously developed land? Select one of
the following:
1. Documentation showing the percentage of the developed area of the site
that was developed prior to project construction and may be classified as a
greyfield.
Note that this credit considers all previously developed land as greyfields.
This includes contaminated sites referred to as “brownfields.” Developed land
consists of pre-existing paving or construction. Land dedicated to current
agricultural use, forestry use, or use as a preserved natural area does not
qualify as a greyfield even if it contains pre-existing paving or construction.
Sites with historic development that have since returned to a natural state do
not qualify as previously developed or greyfield sites.
Yes
#REF!100% percent of the developed area of the project is located on previously
developed land.
B Has the project returned developed areas to a condition that supports natural open
space, habitat, or natural hydrology?
1. Documentation showing previously developed areas that have been
returned to a natural state.Opportunity
A Is the project located on a site currently identified as a closed brownfield?
1. Provide documentation showing that the site is closed or an already
remediated site according to federal or state/provincial programs. For
example, in Canada according to the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory
or provincial brownfields program, or in the United States as a federal or
state brownfield or Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) site.
No
B Is the project located on a site currently identified as an active brownfield?
1. Provide documentation showing that the site is already designated as an
active (non-remediated) brownfield according to federal or state/provincial
programs.
2. For sites not already designated as a “brownfield” under state/provincial or
federal definitions, project teams may provide evidence of contamination.
a. Qualifying sites may include, for example, sites classified as “Suspected” in
the Canadian Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory or provincial brownfields
program, or property under a state-managed Voluntary Cleanup Program
(VCP).
b. Documentation of contamination should include information delineating
the lateral and vertical extents of impact and concentrations of the identified
contaminants of concern. Examples include completed American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) or Canadian Standard Association (CSA)
Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), appropriate
Voluntary Cleanup Program documentation, or site assessments completed
under applicable provincial regulations.
3. Submit any deed restrictions, record of decision (ROD), or other legally
binding agreements between the site owners or potentially responsible
parties and regulatory authorities for the mitigation or remediation of
contaminants associated with the property.
No
C To what extent has the project mitigated or remediated the site? Select one of the
following:
1. Submit a mitigation and remediation plan that has been approved by the
appropriate regulatory agencies.
2. Documentation showing that the plan meets the target level of
achievement in terms of passive and/or active remediation. Examples of
documentation could include but are not limited to:
a. Identify sampling completed for contaminants of concern identified during
the ASTM/CSA Phase I and II ESAs.
b. Identify containment, mitigation and/or remediation methods for all
remaining contaminants of concern in excess of regulatory or site-specific
concentration thresholds, either on site or with the potential to migrate into
the proposed development area.
c. If the contaminants of concern include potentially volatile compounds,
include an evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway, if applicable, and a
mitigation approach, as needed.
3. If applicable, include construction and post-construction phase monitoring
and remediation plans to ensure contaminant mobilization is minimized and
in compliance with applicable federal, state/provincial, and local exposure
requirements and the planned development.
-
#REF!None
D Has the brownfield site been closed or deregulated?
1. Documentation that the site has been closed, or is in the process of being
closed/deregulated, by the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., a closure
report).
2. If applicable, the site management, monitoring, and inspection plan that
will take the site to closure/deregulation.
-
A To what extent does the project infiltrate, evapotranspirate, reuse, and/or treat
stormwater on site? Select one of the following:
1. Site plan and documentation of all stormwater management strategies in
the project and their function in infiltrating, evapotranspirating, reusing, or
treating.
Note that beginning with the Enhanced level, criterion A has two compliance
paths; it is only necessary to meet one set of requirements.
2. Calculations showing that stormwater management systems meet the
relevant requirements for storm events as laid out in the level of achievement
table.
Yes
24
NA
18
0 NoThe extent of remediation of
the brownfield site.
Locate projects on sites
classified as brownfields.
Yes
Percentage of project
development that is located on
previously developed land.
Conserve undeveloped land by
locating projects on previously
developed land.
NW1.4 Preserve
Undeveloped Land
NW2.1 Reclaim
Brownfields
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
#REF!
Infiltrate, evapotranspirate, or reuse more than 100% of 95th percentile local 24-
hour event.
OR
If infiltration, evapotranspiration, or reuse are not permitted or impracticable detain
and treat more than 150% of 95th percentile 24-hour event.
B To what extent does the completed project limit rate or quantity of runoff compared
to existing conditions? Select one of the following:
1. Site plan, documentation, and calculations of the existing site and
stormwater runoff patterns.
2. Site plan, documentation, and calculations of the designed project site
and stormwater runoff patterns.
3. Calculations showing that the project does not exceed rate or quantity of
runoff for the relevant 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and/or 100-year 24-hour rainfall
event.
Yes
#REF!
Do not exceed rate or quantity of runoff for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year 24-
hour rainfall event relative to the existing condition (greenfield, greyfield, or
brownfield).
C Does the project include an erosion, sedimentation, and pollution control plan for all
construction activities?
1. Documentation of an erosion, sedimentation, and pollutant control
plan—commonly referred to as Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) or Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCP)—for all
construction activities associated with the project. The plan (SWPPP or
ESCP) conforms to all applicable erosion and sedimentation requirements. If
the project is located in a region where construction erosion and
sedimentation are not regulated, the plan is demonstrated to comply with
industry-accepted best practices.
Yes
D Does the project treat stormwater from other sites or does it function as part of a
larger stormwater management plan?
1. Documentation of stormwater strategies in the project that infiltrate,
evapotranspirate, reuse, or treat water from other sites.
OR
2. Documentation of how the site hydrology has been returned to a
predevelopment state.
Note that criterion D has two compliance paths. It is only necessary to meet
one set of requirements.
No
A Have operational policies and programs been put in place to control the application
of fertilizers and pesticides?1. Operational policies and programs for applying fertilizers and pesticides.Yes
B Have runoff controls been put in place to minimize contamination of groundwater
and surface water?
1. Plans and drawings showing how runoff controls will be designed,
installed, and maintained.Yes
C To what extent has the project team designed landscaping to require fewer
pesticides and fertilizers? Select one of the following:
1. Documentation of plans for landscaping showing the mix of plant species
emphasizing noninvasive plant species.
2. Design specifications showing that fewer, little, or no fertilizers or
pesticides will be used on the project site during construction and operation.
a. Exceptions are allowed for the controlled use of fertilizer for initial
landscaping establishment. Provide documentation indicating the necessity,
benefits, and term of use.
b. Exceptions are allowed for the controlled use of pesticides for removal of
existing invasive species during project delivery. Provide documentation
indicating the necessity, benefits, and term of use.
3. Documentation and details about any integrated and pest management
approaches demonstrating pesticides will not be required.
4. Documentation and details of any natural fertilizer management
approaches (e.g., composting) demonstrating no chemical fertilizers will be
required.
Note that project teams are encouraged to consider related issues in
landscaping choices, including but not limited to: noninvasive species,
drought-tolerant species, native species, low-maintenance species, and
species with targeted
Yes
#REF!
Landscaping is designed with plant species that do not require pesticides or
fertilizers.
This includes eliminating the need for pesticides and/or fertilizers on sites with prior
use of pesticides or fertilizers.
D Has the project team selected pesticides and fertilizers that have lower toxicity,
persistence, and bioavailability?
1. Documentation showing the pesticides and fertilizers to be used on the
finished project.
2. Measurements of pesticide and fertilizer toxicity, persistence, and
bioavailability along with recommended application rates and procedures.
3. Documentation showing how lower toxicity, persistence, and bioavailability
were incorporated into the choice of pesticides and fertilizers.
Opportunity
A Has project team determined the potential for surface water and/or groundwater
contamination during construction and operations?
1. Documentation of hydrologic and/or hydrogeologic delineation studies,
taking into consideration the complexity of the aquifers. Note that local
authorities may already have done delineation.
2. Documentation explaining potential impacts to surface water and/or
groundwater quality, their risk, and consequences. Water temperature
should be included as a potential impact.
Yes
24
12
17
2 Yes
Reductions in quantity, toxicity,
bioavailability, and persistence
of pesticides and fertilizers
used on site, selection of plant
species, and use of integrated
pest management techniques.
Reduce non-point-source
pollution by reducing the
quantity, toxicity, bioavailability,
and persistence of pesticides
and fertilizers.
Yes
Degree to which the project
infiltrates, evapotranspirates,
reuses, and/or treats
stormwater while not
exceeding rate or quantity
runoff targets.
Minimize the impact of
development on stormwater
runoff quantity, rate, and quality.
NW2.2 Manage
Stormwater
NW2.3 Reduce
Pesticide and Fertilizer
Impacts
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
B Does the project include spill and leak prevention and response plans, and avoid
creating new pathways for contamination during construction and operations?
1. Documentation that the project does not involve any of the following:
a. No direct runoff into karst terrain
b. No untreated industrial or chemical discharge to unlined industrial ponds
or lakes
c. No reinjection water wells unless water is treated to secondary levels
d. No chemical or fracking water injection
2. Documentation demonstrating that spill and leak prevention and response
plans are in place.
3. If applicable, documentation showing the placement of materials storage
piles and handling of potentially polluting runoff (e.g., plans and drawings).
Yes
C
Based on the types of impacts identified in criterion A, does the project reduces the
risk of quality degradation to surface water and/or groundwater? This should include
water temperature.
1. Documentation of project planning, design, or construction decisions
intended to reduce the risk of surface water and/or groundwater quality
degradation. These actions may include but are not limited to:
a. Siting the project to avoid important groundwater recharge areas (e.g.,
Karst topography).
b. Locating equipment and facilities containing potentially polluting
substances away from sensitive environments.
c. Installing runoff interceptors and drainage channels designed to
accommodate pollutants in stormwater runoff or ice melt, potential spills, and
leakage.
d. Installing natural systems to capture or prevent potentially polluting
substances from reaching surface water and/or groundwater sources.
e. Significantly reducing or eliminating potentially polluting substances from
operations.
f. Recycling potentially polluting substances, including keeping them within
the operation or sending them off site for use in other applications.
2. For projects situated in areas where groundwater is used as a source of
drinking water, documentation of wellhead and groundwater recharge area
protection plans and other requirements including protection areas.
Yes
D Have adequate and responsive surface water and/or groundwater quality monitoring
and reporting systems been incorporated into the project?
1. Documentation of surface water and/or groundwater quality monitoring
programs or contaminant source monitoring. This may include
documentation that discharges to receiving waters and/or the receiving
waters themselves are monitored to verify pollutant loading, biological impact,
water temperature, and the impact on receiving water flow.
2. Documentation that the frequency and level of monitoring is sufficient to
address the potential water quality impacts provided in criterion A.
Note that exceptions can be made for criterion D if the project team has
reduced/addressed the potential for surface water or groundwater
contamination to such a degree that ongoing monitoring is unnecessary. For
example, if the project was able to eliminate the need for potentially polluting
materials.
No
E
Has the project actively eliminated at least one source of hazardous and/or
potentially polluting substances, or replaced them with nonhazardous or
nonpolluting substances or materials?
1. Documentation that the project team actively designed the project to
eliminate the need for a hazardous or potentially polluting substance or
material. Project teams may also demonstrate that they have replaced
potential sources of pollution or contamination with nonhazardous or
nonpolluting substances. In some cases, project teams may demonstrate
that a replacement, while still technically hazardous, has substantially
reduced or eliminated the potential for groundwater or surface water
contamination, thereby meeting the intent of the credit.
Yes
F Does the project improve surface water and/or groundwater quality?
1. Documentation of water quality baseline
prior to the project’s development.
2. Documentation demonstrating that the project improves
overall water quality on site, or in the watershed, compared
to the pre-existing baseline. Examples of improving
water quality may include but are not limited to:
a. Implementing land use controls.
b. Restoring degraded natural systems.
c. Installing systems to clean or remove contaminants
from surface water and/or groundwater.
d. Cleaning up contaminated areas.
Yes
A Has the project team identified existing terrestrial habitats and sited the project to
minimize impact?
1. Documentation showing areas of important habitat on site and in the
surrounding region, identifying potential and/or likely movement corridors
between habitat areas, and potential existing barriers to these corridors on
site.
2. The assessment of habitat must be prepared by a trained, certified or
licensed habitat professional.
3. Documentation of collaboration with local and state/provincial agencies.
Yes
205
Designs, plans, and programs
instituted to prevent and
monitor surface water and
groundwater contamination
during construction and
operations.
Preserve water resources by
preventing pollutants from
contaminating surface water and
groundwater and monitoring
impacts during construction and
operations.
Yes
NW2.4 Protect Surface
and Groundwater
Quality
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
B Does the project mitigate all disturbances to functional terrestrial (land) habitats?
Select one of the following:
1. Documentation identifying new impacts or barriers that will result from
development and the specific actions that will be taken to minimize or to
mitigate them.
2. Acceptable mitigation must be on site, on a contiguous adjacent parcel, or
within the affected landscape. Mitigation measures must maintain net habitat
quality, quantity, and connectivity to provide a means for animals to access
pre-development habitat after development is complete. Mitigation plans that
impact sensitive or protected habitats must be prepared by a trained, certified
or licensed habitat professional, or approved by a relevant regulatory body.
3. A monitoring plan to ensure that mitigation measures are effective for
preserving habitat quality and connectivity.
Yes
#REF!
Mitigation measures ensure that existing habitat functions as defined in criteria C, D,
and E are maintained (i.e., not degraded or lost). Mitigation must occur on or
adjacent to the site and follow a hierarchy that prioritizes avoidance, minimization,
restoration, and compensation.
C Does the project increase the quantity of terrestrial habitat?
1. A site plan and documentation illustrating the measures taken to provide
new habitat.
2. Identification of the species that will benefit from the new habitat.
No
D Does the project improve the quality of any existing or proposed new terrestrial
habitat?
1. A site plan and documentation illustrating the measures taken to improve
the quality of the existing habitat on the project. If new habitat is proposed for
the project, document measures taken to improve the quality of proposed
habitat.
2. Documentation of habitat improvement efforts and the intended impact
they will have on site species.
3. A monitoring or maintenance plan, if applicable, to ensure the measures
put in place to improve habitat quality are meeting their performance targets.
No
E Does the project facilitate movement between terrestrial habitats, provide new
connections, or remove barriers, in order to improve habitat connectivity?
1. Documentation of new connections provided between habitats and their
appropriateness for the local wildlife, and/or documentation of the removal of
existing barriers to movement and habitat connectivity.
2. A monitoring plan to confirm improved habitat connectivity.
No
F Does the project return developed land to natural habitat, or set aside existing
habitat for permanent conservation and protection?
1. Documentation of previously developed land being returned to a natural
state that supports habitat development. Alternatively, documentation that
habitat has been set aside for permanent conservation and protection.
No
A Has the project team identified impacts to wetland and surface water functions?
1. Documentation identifying all potential impacts to wetland and surface
water functions, including hydrologic connection, water quality, aquatic
habitat, and sediment transport.
Yes
B Does the project minimize and mitigate disturbance to wetland and surface water
functions? Select one of the following:
1. Documentation of strategies implemented to minimize disturbance to
wetland and surface water functions: hydrologic connection, water quality,
aquatic habitat, and sediment transport.
2. Documentation of mitigation measures to compensate for unavoidable
losses in wetland and surface water functions.
Yes
#REF!
Efforts are made to avoid and minimize negative impacts to wetland and surface
water functions and to compensate for remaining unavoidable losses. Mitigation
measures must maintain net aquatic habitat quality and quantity and follow a
hierarchy that prioritizes avoidance, minimization, restoration, and compensation
C Does the project protect or restore hydrologic connection?
1. Documentation showing how the project will protect or restore hydrologic
connection. This may include:
a. For streams, rivers, and lakes, documentation showing how the waterway
is connected, or proposed to be connected, to its riparian floodplain. Project
teams may use a six-month to two-year frequency flow event.
b. For wetlands, documentation showing that structures that drain wetlands
will be removed and/or appropriate sources of groundwater or surface
waters are reconnected, diverted, or maintained.
Yes
D Does the project protect or restore water quality?
1. Documentation showing the current source of the waterway’s normal flow,
the water quality of its source water, and how the water quality will be
protected or restored.
Yes
E Does the project protect or restore aquatic habitat?
1. A habitat survey of the waterbody and reference areas conducted by a
recognized professional, and a plan to protect or restore the habitat for
aquatic and riparian species by plantings and appropriate physical
modifications. This survey may include the location and proposed mitigation
of existing obstructions to habitat connectivity such as dams, roadway
structures, and other infrastructure that may block aquatic or shoreline
species migration.
No
18
20
2
7 YesNumber of functions
maintained and restored.
Maintain and restore the
ecosystem functions of streams,
wetlands, waterbodies, and their
riparian areas.
Yes
The number of habitat
functions addressed in order
to preserve or enhance the net
area and quality of functional
habitat.
Preserve and improve the
functionality of terrestrial (land)
habitats.
NW3.1 Enhance
Functional Habitats
NW3.2 Enhance
Wetland and Surface
Water Functions
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
F(1) Does the project protect sediment transport and reduce sedimentation?
1. Documentation demonstrating that sediment transport will not be
disrupted by the proposed project. Projects should also consider
sedimentation.
2. Documentation that existing sources of sediment obstruction or
sedimentation will be removed or mitigated, and, if appropriate, sediment will
be removed.
3. Reports from qualified resource professionals are required as part of the
documentation (e.g., an engineer with sediment transport knowledge and
experience).
No
F(2)
In addition to protecting all existing wetland and surface water functions, can the
project demonstrate it has restored at least one previously degraded wetlands
and/or surface water function?
1. Documentation demonstrating that sediment transport will not be
disrupted by the proposed project. Projects should also consider
sedimentation.
2. Documentation that existing sources of sediment obstruction or
sedimentation will be removed or mitigated, and, if appropriate, sediment will
be removed.
3. Reports from qualified resource professionals are required as part of the
documentation (e.g., an engineer with sediment transport knowledge and
experience).
No
A Has the project team identified the 100-year or design frequency floodplain in
relation to the project location?
1. Documentation showing the location of the project relative to the 100-year
or design floodplain (whichever is more stringent). Projects are encouraged
to use existing information. If the 100-year flood is not demarcated, project
teams may use the flood of record plus 3 feet/1 meter.
2. Determination whether climate change predictions may significantly impact
the floodplain map and potential impacts to the project.
Yes
B To what extent does the project preserve vegetated zones within the floodplain?
Select one of the following:
1. Site maps indicating the area of natural/vegetated zones within the
floodplain before the project development.
2. Site maps indicating the area of natural/vegetated zones within the
floodplain after the project development.
3. Calculations of the percentage of existing vegetated areas after
development.
Note that for Restorative, the project avoids developing any existing
vegetated areas within the floodplain.
OR
4. Documentation that no project development will occur within the
floodplain. This alternative documentation option for criterion B should be
pursued only by projects located outside a floodplain that still contribute to
maintaining floodplain functions.
Yes
#REF!The project avoids developing any existing natural/vegetated zones within the
floodplain.
C Does the project mitigate impacts to floodplain functions?
1. Documentation that the project preserves floodplain conveyance and
floodplain storage. For projects with larger sites, documentation should also
demonstrate that conveyance and storage are maintained both above and
below the 10-year flood (i.e., the project does not shift net storage capacity
from lower to higher elevations, thereby removing storage capacity from
higher-frequency floods).
2. Documentation of any additional efforts to mitigate impacts to floodplain
functions. Mitigation efforts may include but are not limited to:
a. Maintain or increase floodplain storage capacity.
b. Maintain pre-development floodplain infiltration, such as amount of
impervious surfaces, vegetation and soil protection zones, and other
approaches that allow for natural floodwater infiltration and filtration of
pollutants.
c. Maintain or enhance habitat such as riparian buffers within and along
waterways in the floodplain.
No
D Was the project intentionally sited to avoid floodplains?
1. Documentation demonstrating that the project was intentionally sited to
avoid a floodplain. Documentation must show that the owner and the project
team made meaningful efforts to avoid developing or impacting a floodplain
during the site selection process.
Note that meeting criterion D is an alternative achievement path for the
Conserving level. Achieving Conserving by meeting criterion D does not
require meeting criteria A, B, and C, and vice versa.
Yes
E Does the project remove structures from the floodplain or return previously
developed areas to a vegetated state?
1. Site maps indicating the location of structures or impervious/vegetated
zones within the floodplain before the project development.
2. Site maps indicating the location of structures or impervious/vegetated
zones within the floodplain after the project development.
Yes
141 Yes
Efforts to avoid floodplains or
maintain natural-acting
floodplain functions.
Preserve floodplain functions by
limiting development and
impacts of development in the
floodplain.
NW3.3 Maintain
Floodplain Functions
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
A Does the project avoid introducing invasive species to the site?
1. Documentation showing the type and quantity of all species introduced to
the site. For example, a landscaping plan that includes all species of
vegetation showing that no invasive species will be planted.
2. Documentation that species used on the site are noninvasive.
3. A construction management plan, or policies, to prevent the introduction
of invasive species. The plan includes best practices to ensure that
construction materials and equipment used on site are free of invasive
species and seeds.
Yes
B Has the project team conducted a site assessment to determine if invasive species
are present?
1. Mapping of all invasive species populations found on the site.
a. The documentation should identify populations of minor or major
infestations. Infestations over one hectare (2.5 acres) can generally be
considered major. However, exceptions can be made with justification of the
type and level of establishment of the infestation.
b. The documentation should include the assessment of a trained biologist,
ecologist, or environmental professional whether the populations can be
eradicated or only controlled.
2. Documentation of collaboration with state or local agencies OR the
qualifications of the biologist, ecologist, or environmental professional who
conducted the site assessment.
Yes
C Does the project implement controls for existing infestations of invasive species
before, during and post-construction?
1. Documentation of plans for the removal of minor infestations of invasive
species before and throughout construction to prevent their growth into
major infestations. Plans may include specifications, contract language, or
operational management plans.
2. Documentation of plans for a post-construction follow-up to remove any
invasive species that re-emerges after initial control. Plans may include
specifications, contract language, or operational management plans.
3. Documentation of control, containment or suppression activities during
construction for any major infestations of invasive species found on site.
Yes
D Does the project guard against future infestations by supporting the establishment
of native and/or noninvasive species?
1. Documentation of the inclusion of native species in the project
landscaping. Project teams should recognize that the intent of this criterion is
to prevent the future introduction of invasive species by establishing or
protecting healthy systems of native or naturalized species. Documentation
should focus on how landscaping or maintenance plans are intentionally
designed to increase the site resilience to infestation.
2. Plan showing areas of existing noninvasive species that will remain
undisturbed.
Yes
E Does the project provide long-term controls to prevent the reintroduction of invasive
species?
1. A minimum three-year plan that addresses:
a. Prevention strategies for reducing the potential for invasive species to
become re-established and spread at the site after initial removal.
b. Early detection and management strategies that monitor for and remove
invasive species emerging on site in the future.
c. Rehabilitation and restoration methods to support long-term re-
establishment of native or naturalized species on the site.
Yes
F Does the project include the ongoing control, suppression, or containment of major
infestations of invasive species after construction?
1. Documentation of ongoing control, containment or suppression plans for
major infestations of invasive species.Yes
A Has the project team limited the area that is disturbed by development activities?
1. Site plans and documentation showing total vegetated areas and
percentage that will be disturbed.
2. Documentation of how development plans will limit soil disturbance either
through the project design or construction management.
Yes
B
Have vegetated areas disturbed by development activities been restored for
appropriate soil type, structure, and function to support healthy plant and tree
growth?
1. Plans and specifications indicating that at least 95% of post-construction
vegetated areas on site, including areas disturbed by development, will be
restored to a condition that can support healthy plant and tree growth. Soils
must be reused for functions comparable to their original function (i.e.,
topsoil is used as topsoil, subsoil as subsoil, or subsoil is amended to
become functional topsoil).
2. Documentation that disturbed natural soils in vegetated areas will be
conserved and reused on site to the extent possible.
3. Documentation, including site plans, showing how soil type, structure and
function have been restored. Calculations that soil restoration activities
constitute at least 95% of the post-construction vegetated areas on site. Soils
must be reused for functions comparable to their original function (i.e.,
topsoil is used as topsoil, subsoil as subsoil, or subsoil is amended to
become functional topsoil).
4. Documentation that disturbed natural soils in vegetated areas were
conserved and reused on site to the extent possible.
Yes
12
8
12
3
Yes
Degree to which invasive
species have been reduced or
eliminated.
Use appropriate noninvasive
species, and control or eliminate
existing invasive species.
Yes
Degree to which the disruption
of soil health has been
minimized and restored.
Preserve the composition,
structure and function of site
soils.
NW3.4 Control
Invasive Species
NW3.5 Protect Soil
Health
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
C Has the project team implemented a soil protection plan or policies? Select one of
the following:
1. Documentation that the soil protection plan, or policies, at minimum
identify special landscape features and include best management practices
to prevent soil disruption within their protective zones.
2. Documentation that the soil protection plan, or policies, are
comprehensive and compliant with best management practices according to
a local soil conservation agency, or have been reviewed or prepared under
the guidance of a certified soil scientist.
No
#REF!None
NW0.0 Educational Value
CLIMATE AND RESILIENC 56 190
A Has the project team determined materials that are the primary contributors to
embodied carbon for the project during construction and operation?
1. Documentation of the primary materials to be used in the construction and
ongoing operation of the project over its life. Documentation should include:
a. The materials used.
b. General estimates of the quantities of materials used. Note that operations
materials may need to be multiplied by the frequency of use over the project
life. Material estimates should include anticipated repairs/upkeep (e.g., road
resurfacing).
c. Estimates of the embodied carbon of materials. Estimates may use readily
available public information such as regional, national, or global averages.
2. Identification of the select materials that collectively will make up over 80%
of the total estimated embodied carbon of the project.
No
B Has the project team calculated the primary contributors to overall embodied
carbon?
1. Index of the embodied carbon calculations of the primary contributors to
carbon intensity over the life of the project (construction and operations)
identified in criterion A. This should include:
a. Carbon emissions to produce the material, including raw material
extraction, refinement, and manufacture including secondary or tertiary
processing.
b. Carbon emissions from transporting the material from the manufacturer to
the project site, including intermediary points.
Embodied carbon data may come from the manufacturer, reputable
databases, reputable embodied energy software, or from project team
calculations. If the source or specific type of materials is not known at the
time of assessment, calculations may present a range of values or rely on
likely material choices. Calculations should be in tons CO2.
No
C To what extent does the project reduce the net embodied carbon of materials used
in construction and operation? Select one of the following:
1. Documentation that the project has set targets for reducing net embodied
carbon.
2. Documentation of strategies/plans to reduce net embodied carbon. These
may include but are not limited to:
a. Sizing the project to require less material;
b. Designing the project to use less material;
c. Choosing materials that have lower embodied carbon;
d. Reducing material needed for repair and maintenance;
e. Reducing material waste during construction;
f. Reducing material waste during operation;
g. Sourcing local materials to reduce transportation emissions;
h. Utilizing lower-carbon transportation modes.
3. Calculations of reductions in embodied carbon achieved. Calculations
should compare total carbon intensity of materials for the project against the
total carbon intensity of the baseline. Calculations should be in tons CO2.
No
#REF!None
A To what extent does the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions during its
operational life? Select one of the following:
1. Calculations of the baseline greenhouse gas emissions over a period
equivalent to the operational life of the project (e.g., 25 years).
2. Submit calculations for:
a. the project’s estimated annual greenhouse gas emissions over the life of
the project;
b. the operational life of the project over which the calculations are made
(e.g., 2025-2050); and
c. Calculations of the percentage reduction compared to the baseline used
over the same period.
Calculations should include any natural or mechanical methods of carbon
sequestration. Purchased carbon offsets may be included in the calculations.
In certain cases where a demand or volume increase is anticipated over the
life of the project, project teams may choose to calculate emissions
reductions on a per unit basis (passenger miles traveled, millions of gallons
of water treated, etc.).
Yes
#REF!The project team demonstrates at least a 25% reduction in total CO2e over the
operational life of the project compared to the baseline.
20
26
0
13
YesPercentage of reduction in net
embodied carbon of materials.
Reduce the impacts of material
extraction,
refinement/manufacture, and
transport over the project life.
Yes
Percentage of reduction in
operational greenhouse gas
Reduce greenhouse gas
emissions during the operation
of the project reducing project
CR1.2 Reduce
Greenhouse Gas
CR1.1 Reduce Net
Embodied Carbon
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
B Has the project team calculated and reported the annual greenhouse gas
emissions of the project?
1. Calculation of annual greenhouse gas emissions over the life of the
project. All greenhouse gas emissions should be in tons of CO2e (tCO2e).
Calculations include all sources of emissions from facilities, processes, or
vehicles owned or controlled within the project boundary, as well as indirect
emissions from the off-site generation of energy used by the project.
Emissions should be classified by the following categories if applicable:
a. Off-Site Energy Generation
b. Stationary Fuel Combustion Emissions (non-vehicular combustion
occurring at the facility intended for energy production)
c. Operations Transportation Emissions
d. Waste Emissions
e. Wastewater Emissions
f. Biomass Emissions
g. Industrial Process Emissions
h. Fugitive Emissions
Yes
A Does the project meet all relevant minimum air quality standards and regulations?
1. Documentation indicating the local, regional, or national standards and
regulations relevant to the project.
2. Documentation demonstrating that the project has met or will meet all
relevant standards and regulations.
Yes
B To what extent does the project reduce air pollutant emissions during operations?
Select one of the following:
1. Estimates of total annual air pollutant emissions over the life of the project.
2. Documentation of all strategies deployed to reduce air pollutant emissions.
a. Documentation demonstrating that the project uses best available control
systems or best management practices (Enhanced).
OR
b. Documentation demonstrating that air pollution controls are within the
95th percentile, or represent the lowest levels possible compared to projects
of similar type (Superior)
OR
c. Documentation that the project eliminates all air pollutant sources,
chooses a non-polluting alternative, or achieves at least a 98% net reduction
in air pollution emissions compared to the baseline (Conserving and
Restorative).
Yes
The project reduces emissions through the use of best available control systems or
best management practices.
C Does the project include the ongoing monitoring and management of direct air
pollutant emissions?
1. Documentation that the project includes systems for monitoring any air
pollutants directly emitted during operations.
2. Documentation of processes, procedures, or systems designed to identify
and address changes in emissions in order to maintain performance.
Note that monitoring is not necessary if the project does not produce air
pollutants. Documentation that the project does not produce air pollutants
emissions is sufficient to satisfy criterion C for certain projects pursuing
Conserving or Restorative. If the project produces air pollutants but achieves
zero emissions through control systems, the project is still required to meet
the monitoring requirements.
Yes
D Has the project team assessed the materiality of volatile organic compounds to the
health of construction workers and the project operators?
1. Documentation that the use of products and materials containing volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and their potential impact on human health over
the project life was assessed. If VOCs will be present during construction or
operations documentation must include:
a. Specifications limiting the use of, or controlling the exposure to, volatile
organic compounds during construction.
b. For projects/facilities with interior occupied spaces, documentation of
steps taken to reduce VOCs in material choices.
Yes
E Does the project remove existing air pollutant sources?
1. Documentation of how the project includes the direct removal of existing
air pollutant sources or the capture and sequestration of air pollutants in
order to achieve a net positive impact.
No
A Has the project team identified potential siting hazards, the vulnerability of the
project to the hazard, and the potential for the project to exacerbate the hazard?
1. Documentation of identified site hazards.
2. Documentation of the vulnerability of the project and project alternatives to
siting hazards.
3. Documentation that the project team considered the potential for the
project to exacerbate potential siting hazards. For example, the potential for
a project developed on a hillside to increase erosion, contribute to landslide
risk, or to increase damage to downhill development in the event of a
landslide.
Yes
184
emissions.of the project, reducing project
contribution to climate change.
YesReduction of air pollutants
compared to baseline.
Reduce emissions of air
pollutants: particulate matter
(including dust), ground-level
ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur
oxides, nitrogen oxides, lead,
and volatile organic compounds.
Emissions
CR1.3 Reduce Air
Pollutant Emissions
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
B Can the project team demonstrate that siting and project alternatives were seriously
considered in order to minimize exposure to risk?
1. Documentation that project and siting alternatives were considered in
order to minimize exposure to siting hazards as much as practicable (e.g.,
review meetings, alternative analyses, siting studies).
Yes
C Has the project team implemented strategies to mitigate the impact of site hazards?
1. Documentation identifying strategies and controls implemented to reduce
risk. For certain hazards, this may include monitoring and response plans.
2. Documentation that the project team specifically determined whether the
project has the potential to exacerbate site hazards and, if so, mitigation
measures were implemented to reduce the project’s impact.
Yes
D Can the project team demonstrate that the chosen project and site resulted in the
lowest exposure to site hazards while still meeting project requirements?
1. Based on the alternative sites and projects identified in criterion B, the
project team presents evidence that the chosen project and site represent
the lowest exposure to site hazards while still meeting project requirements.
In certain cases, project teams can present evidence that the nature of the
infrastructure requires its location in hazard-prone areas. Similarly, in certain
cases, project teams can present evidence that a lower-risk alternative would
not meet project requirements. The objective of this criterion is for project
teams to demonstrate that the project and site were chosen intentionally with
full understanding of the risk exposure and to justify why that was the best
decision within the context of the project’s reasonable constraints.
Yes
E Was the site chosen to intentionally avoid known site hazards?
1. Evidence that the project team intentionally avoided siting the project in
proximity to site hazards. Evidence should include alternative sites that were
seriously considered.
No
F Does the project remove or modify structures subject to frequent damage?
1. Documentation of structures, or other development, removed from the
site. This may include structures at high risk of future damage or failure.
Evidence should be clear that removal or modification of the structures will
prevent or reduce the risk of future damage or loss. Replacing existing
structures or other development with similarly at-risk structures does not
qualify for this criterion.
Yes
A Has the project team determined climate change threats to the project and its
surroundings?
1. Documentation that the project team has conducted a climate threat
analysis or that an existing climate change study was available for the
community.
2. Documentation that the climate threat analysis expands beyond direct
impacts to the project and includes threats to the connected infrastructure
system or related infrastructure network. For example, a water treatment
facility outside the range of heightened storm surges from sea level rise may
be disrupted by loss of pump stations located within the heightened range.
3. Documentation that the climate threat analysis expands beyond
infrastructure systems and includes threats to the broader community. For
example, how water-dependent infrastructure in a region at risk of drought
would be competing with the community for limited resources.
Yes
B Has the project team determined the vulnerability of the project to climate change
threats?
1. Identification of project vulnerabilities to climate change threats reported in
criterion A.
2. Documentation that a review was conducted of key design or
performance standards to determine whether they would be impacted by
changes in operating conditions due to climate change.
Yes
C Has the project team determined the vulnerability of the infrastructure system to
climate change threats?
1. Mapping of the interdependencies between the project and its connected
infrastructure system. For example, a light rail station and its connected
network of stations and rail lines, or a pump station and its connected water
treatment system.
2. Identification of system vulnerabilities to climate change threats reported in
criterion A.
3. Documentation that specific consideration was given to the dependence
on resources or services such as materials, energy, water, transportation
access, etc., and the future reliability or cost of these resources due to
climate change impacts.
Yes
D Has the project team determined the vulnerability of the community to climate
change threats?
1. Mapping of the interdependencies between the project and community
systems. This can include physical systems like energy, water,
transportation, communication systems, waste removal, and/or food supply.
It may also include nonphysical systems like emergency services, funding,
regulations, workforce, and/or community/political support.
2. Identification of community systems’ vulnerabilities to climate change
threats reported in criterion A.
Additional
Information
Required
16
20
16
14 Yes
Scope and
comprehensiveness of climate
change vulnerability
assessment.
Develop a comprehensive
climate change vulnerability
assessment.
Yes
The degree to which the
project is designed and/or
sited to avoid or mitigate site-
related risks.
Minimize or avoid development
on sites prone to hazards.
CR2.1 Avoid
Unsuitable
Development
CR2.2 Assess Climate
Change Vulnerability
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
E Has the project team or owner shared their climate threat findings?
1. Documentation that the project team or owner have shared, or will share,
their climate threat findings with a broader audience. Information is shared
publicly in order to increase general knowledge of climate threats, advance
awareness, and support/facilitate the inclusion of climate threats into future
projects.
Additional
Information
Required
A To what extent does the project team’s risk assessment include the project,
infrastructure system, and community? Select one of the following:
1. Evidence that the documentation in criteria B, C, D, and E sufficiently
addresses the scope required in the level of achievement: project
(Improved), infrastructure system (Enhanced), and community (Superior and
Conserving).
No
#REF!None
B Has the project team identified the critical functions and dependencies of the
infrastructure asset and its primary components?
1. Documentation that project teams conducted a review to identify critical
functions and dependencies of the infrastructure asset and its primary
components. Note that documentation for B, C, D, and E can be submitted
together as part of the comprehensive risk evaluation.
2. Mapping of the interdependencies between the project and its connected
infrastructure system (for example, a light rail station and its connected
network of stations and rail lines, or a pump station and its connected water
treatment system (Enhanced and above).
3. Mapping of the interdependencies between the project and community
systems. This can include physical systems like energy, water,
transportation, communication systems, waste removal, and/or food supply.
It may also include nonphysical systems like emergency services, funding,
regulations, workforce, and/or community/political support (Superior and
Conserving).
No
C Has the project team identified the threats or hazards to the project and its
surroundings?
1. Documentation that the project team has identified threats/hazards or that
existing threat/hazard studies were available and are sufficient and
comprehensive for the project. Projects that pursue CR2.1 may provide that
documentation for climate threats. However, documentation in this credit
should extend beyond climate threats.
Note that project teams can and should augment existing threat/hazard
studies in their documentation if the studies do not fully capture all potential
threats to the project.
No
D Has the project team identified the vulnerabilities of the critical functions and
dependencies of the infrastructure asset?
1. Identification of the vulnerabilities of the critical functions and
dependencies of the infrastructure asset and its primary components
identified in criterion B to the threats/hazards identified in criterion C.
No
E Has the project team evaluated risks by determining the probability of a threat or
hazard occurring and the associated impacts?
1. Documentation of the potential for loss or damage resulting from the
threats and hazards identified in criterion C exploiting vulnerabilities identified
in criterion D. This should be presented as a product of the likelihood of
occurrence and the associated consequences. Consequences and impacts
should be classified as social, environmental, and/or economic/financial.
No
F Did the risk evaluation conducted by the project include the participation of the
owner and a diverse and integrated team of key stakeholders?
1. Documentation of the risk evaluation process and evidence of participation
by the owner and key stakeholders. Applicants should explain how the
stakeholders represented a diverse set of perspectives appropriate to the
scope of the project.
No
A Has the project team identified the project performance goals and risk appetite of
the owner?
1. Documentation identifying key performance objectives of the project that
will form the foundation of the risk assessment.
2. Documentation explaining the owner’s approach to risk management on
the project. This is the guide for separating “acceptable risks” from risks that
require mitigation and management.
No
B Has the project team developed risk management strategies based on a
comprehensive risk evaluation?
1. Documentation that the project team has conducted a risk evaluation,
including at minimum:
•Identification of the objectives and performance goals of the project and
related systems.
•Identification of the critical assets, systems, and networks essential to
meeting objectives and performance goals.
•Threats/hazards identification
•Vulnerability assessment
•Likelihood/probability of threat/hazard occurrence.
•Consequences/impact of the occurrence
2. List or matrix of potential risk management strategies that could be
implemented to reduce project risk and increase resilience. Strategies should
be prioritized according to their risk reduction potential and any extenuating
factors (cost, availability, reliability, effectiveness, etc.)
No
C Have key stakeholders been engaged in developing resilience goals?
1. Evidence of participation by the owner and key stakeholders in developing
or reviewing resilience goals. Applicants should explain how the stakeholders
represented a diverse set of perspectives appropriate to the scope of the
project. Evidence should indicate that stakeholder engagement was
meaningful and produced useful feedback on establishing or prioritizing
resilience goals.
No
20
26
0
0
Yes
The degree to which resilience
goals expand from initial
commitments to quantifiable
project objectives, long-term
operating plans, and
community-wide development
plans.
To support increased project
and community resilience
through the establishment of
clear objectives and goals.
Yes
Scope and
comprehensiveness of the
multihazard risk and resilience
evaluation.
Conduct a comprehensive,
multihazard risk and resilience
evaluation.
CR2.3 Evaluate Risk
and Resilience
CR2.4 Establish
Resilience Goals and
Strategies
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
D Is the project part of, or does it support, larger community resilience or climate
change adaptation goals?
1. Documentation of broader community or regional resilience goals (for
example, as stated in existing resilience or climate change adaptation or
preparedness plans). Documentation may include a pre-existing plan
developed independently of the project or a plan developed by the project
and shared with relevant government agencies.
2. Documentation of a direct connection between the project and the
broader community resilience goals it supports. Documentation explains how
the project contributes to or supports these goals.
OR
If the community- or region-wide resilience goals are lacking, the project
team can alternatively submit documentation that the project’s resilience
goals were shared publicly in order to support development of broader
resilience goals within the community.
A Has the project team developed resilience goals and strategies based on a
comprehensive risk evaluation?
1. Documentation of a comprehensive risk evaluation. Projects pursuing
CR2.2 may submit their credit documentation. Applicants may refer to CR2.2
for guidance on conducting a risk evaluation and relevant documentation.
2. List or matrix of resilience goals and risk management strategies prioritized
according to their risk reduction potential and any extenuating factors (cost,
availability, reliability, effectiveness, etc.)
Note that for this criterion, documentation must be relevant and specific to
resilience goals.
No
B Has the project team implemented resilience strategies sufficient to address major
project risks and improve project resilience?
1. Documentation that strategies implemented in the project increase
resilience. Project teams should explain how the strategies address one or
more of the core principles of resilient systems:
• Reflective (learning and improving)
• Resourceful (resource efficient, creative)
• Inclusive (shared action and responsibilities)
• Integrated (diverse systems, institutions, and people)
• Robust (durable, well constructed)
• Redundant (diverse, fault tolerant)
• Adaptable (flexible, changeable)
No
C Has the project team periodically monitored the implementation of project resilience
strategies and reviewed their continued effectiveness throughout project delivery?
1. Project-specific report(s), or meeting minutes, detailing how the project will
carry out the implementation of resilience strategies through construction
and which key performance indicators will be used to measure and manage
initiatives.
2. Project-specific sustainability report(s), or meeting minutes, detailing how
the project team revisited resilience strategies during project development to
ensure their continued effectiveness in the face of potential changes in
project design or parameters.
No
D Will resilience goals and strategies be incorporated into the ongoing operations and
maintenance of the project?
1. Documentation of operations and management plans, or coordinated
efforts with organizations responsible for project operations, that establish
plan-do-check-act systems that learn and continually improve resilience
capabilities.
2. Documentation that any relevant resilience features provide sufficient
operations and maintenance guidance to ensure their effectiveness during
operations.
Note that for this criterion, documentation must be relevant and specific to
resilience goals. Project teams are encouraged to share their resilience
strategies, as well as their performance and effectiveness over time during
operations. Actions and commitments to do so may qualify for innovation
points under CR0.0 Innovate or Exceed Credit Requirements.
No
E Does the project include methods for measuring or quantifying resilience
performance targets?
1. Documentation of the calculations and methodology the project team
used to quantify resilience goals and outcomes. Many risk management
strategies are justifiable through qualitative assessments or do not require
justification. However, when possible, quantifying the benefits of increased
resilience through objective measure (e.g., cost savings, improved service)
can support their implementation on the project and benefit the knowledge
and understanding of the broader resilience community.
No
A Does the project increase internal systems integration?
1. Documentation of how systems within the project were integrated or
coordinated in order to achieve efficiencies, redundancies, or system
diversity.
Yes
B Will the infrastructure integration reduce the risk of systemic or cascading failures?
1. Documentation that the project team understands critical failure points
and that efforts to integrate internal or external systems will decrease rather
than increase the risk of system or cascading failures.
Yes
C Does the project increase external systems integration?
1. Documentation that the project improves the efficiency, redundancy, or
system diversity of the larger infrastructure system beyond the project
boundary.
Yes
26
18
0
9 Yes
The degree to which the
project is integrated into other
connected systems, where
beneficial and appropriate, in
order to increase resilience
and systems performance.
Enhance the operational
relationships and strengthen the
functional integration of the
project into connected, efficient,
and diverse infrastructure
systems.
Yes
The degree to which the
project incorporates elements
that increase durability, the
ability to withstand hazards,
and extend useful life.
Increase resilience, life-cycle
system performance, and the
ability to withstand hazards by
maximizing durability.
CR2.5 Maximize
Resilience
CR2.6 Improve
Infrastructure
Integration
Envision Framework Pre-Assessment Checklist
Credit Names 43% -Intent Metric
Is this credit
applicable?Criterion Assessment Questions: Documentation Requirements Criteria Met?
D Does the project integrate infrastructure networks?
1. Documentation that the project team made efforts to identify and leverage
opportunities to integrate infrastructure networks in order to achieve
efficiency, redundancy, or system diversity. The project may demonstrate
that it is part of a larger program, policy, or initiative to improve cross-sector
performance and sustainability.
No
E Does the project integrate data or monitoring systems in order to improve
performance?
1. Documentation that the project includes integrated monitoring or data
gathering systems in order to improve performance during operations.Yes