855773644-LEED-v5-BD-C-Reference-Guide-Launch-Edition - Page 033

Extracted Content

To support this evaluation, project teams can use tools such as the FEMA National Risk Index [6] , NOAA Climate Explorer [7], or state and municipal hazard mitigation and adaptation plans to identify patterns of past and projected hazard events. Stakeholder engagement with local authorities, utilities, and community resilience groups can further inform risk prioritization. For example, if a site is in a flood-prone area with increasing extreme precipitation events, flooding may be identified as a priority hazard due to its potential to damage flooring, walls, and electrical systems. Similarly, in regions experiencing rising temperatures, extreme heat may be prioritized due to its impact on material degradation and increased cooling loads.

Once teams identify priority hazards, teams must document findings in the climate resilience assessment template or submit an equivalent assessment using an external tool. This process allows for climate risks to be systematically analyzed and integrated into the project’s planning, design, and operational strategies.

Assessing hazards After two priority hazards have been identified, evaluate the impact by specifying the IPCC emissions scenario used in the assessment, which outlines possible future atmospheric GHG concentrations. Teams should define scenarios that are both acceptable and appropriate for the project’s geographic location, taking into account local climate action plans to guide their selection. For instance, projects aiming to align with ambitious global climate mitigation goals or for those with shorter lifespans (20-30 years) should use Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) 1–2.6 (Low Emissions Scenario) [8] , where less severe climate impacts are expected. Conversely, projects in high-risk areas, those with longer lifespans (50+ years), or where significant climate impacts are anticipated due to limited mitigation measures or regional vulnerabilities find SSP5-8.5 (High Emissions Scenario) more suitable.

Next, teams define the projected service life of the project. For LEED projects, the projected service life refers to the project’s expected lifespan, which could extend to fiscal year 2050 or up to 100 years, during which the assessment of hazard risks remains applicable. Project teams must also evaluate the hazard level and assign a hazard risk rating based on the potential severity and impact. The hazard level reflects the intensity of a specific hazard event, categorized as low, medium, or high. Project teams should report and identify the level of each potential hazard using historical data and future projections. Teams can refer to the IPCC climate projections for historical data or climate projections. The hazard risk rating typically

6 “The National Risk Index”, FEMA, accessed on April 2, 2025, https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/. 7 “The Climate Explorer”, NOAA, accessed April 2, 2025, https://crt-climate-explorer.nemac.org/. 8 Iturbide, M., Fernández, J., Gutiérrez, J.M. et al. “Implementation of FAIR principles in the IPCC: the WGI AR6 Atlas repository.” Sci Data 9, 629 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01739-y.

U.S. Green Building Council LEED v5 Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction, April 2025 Launch Edition 23