Sustainable Design, 

LEED, and the 

Rawlins Field 

Office Building

By Renee Azerbegi, Mechanical 

Engineer and LEED Accredited 

Professional, The RMH Group and

Pat Fleming, Lead Civil Engineer 

and LEED Accredited Professional

BLM, National Science and 

Technology Center

Sustainability is integral to the 

mission of the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). The U.S. 

Green Building Council (USGBC) 

is a nonprofit organization formed 

by a coalition of industry leaders to 

promote the concepts of sustainable design and construction. The 

Council has developed the Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design (LEED) Green Building 

Rating System—a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for 

assessing and advancing the principles of sustainability in the 

design, construction, and performance of buildings. The LEED 

program provides a means for 

buildings to be certified upon 

meeting certain prerequisites. The 

total point value awarded for a 

project determines whether the 

building achieves a certified, silver, 

gold, or platinum rating. An example of the LEED scorecard may be 

viewed at the following Web link: 

http://www.aisc.org/Template.cfm?Sec

tion=Technical_Answers&template=/

ContentManagement/ContentDispla

y.cfm&ContentID=22061

A new BLM field office in 

Rawlins, Wyoming, was designed 

and is being constructed with 

sustainability in mind. The 

planned 32,540-square-foot building will accommodate a 100-member staff responsible for managing 

public lands in south-central Wyoming. The consulting design team 

accepted BLM’s challenge to make 

sustainability a priority, and all key 

project team members met for a 

sustainable design charrette.

The Charrette

The charrette, which met in May 

2002, served as a forum for gaining a mutual understanding of the 

principles of sustainable design and 

for identifying and selecting sustainable design goals for the field 

office. All key design team members 

were represented, including those 

from the BLM, Sellards & Grigg 

(civil engineering consultants), 

Chamberlin Architects (architects), 

the RMH Group (mechanical, 

electrical, energy, and sustainability 

consultants), and Wenk Associates 

(landscape architects). Each member of the design team provided 

an overview of the project’s design 

parameters. Sustainable design 

strategies for the project were then 

analyzed according to the LEED 

Green Building Rating System. 

LEED

The BLM set a progressive target 

of a LEED Gold certification for 

the Rawlins Field Office, making 

it the first LEED-registered building in Wyoming and the first BLM 

project in pursuit of LEED Gold 

status. As the sustainability consultant, the RMH Group facilitated 

the charrette, follow-up collaborative sessions, and integrated design 

(Table 1). Because more than half 

the available LEED points relate to 

mechanical and electrical design, 

the RMH staff was able to closely 

coordinate the mechanical and 

electrical design with its in-house 

LEED-accredited professional. The 

landscape, civil, and architectural 

consultants also worked closely 

with RMH personnel to help create a highly sustainable project. 

After the completion of construction documents in early 2003, the 

total LEED points pursued for the 

project stood at 44—five more 

than required for a LEED Gold 

rating.

Energy 

Energy usage plays a significant 

role in many of the LEED criteria. 

An important goal for the project 

is to reduce the annual cost of 

energy consumption by at least 

30% from the recognized codecompliant design industry standard, developed by the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, 

NO. 70 DATE 08/23/04

Range

ENGINEERING

Resource Note 70

Page 1

Table 1. Sustainability goals and objectives for the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Rawlins Field 

Offi ce project.

Sustainability goal BLM Rawlins 

Field Offi ce objectives

Minimize site impact Sustainable site selection

Erosion control plan

Storm water management plan

Storm water treatment

Highly refl ective roofi ng material

Reduced light pollution

Living snow fence

Minimize effects of 

transportation

Bicycle racks with shower apparatus

Minimized parking capacity

Preferred parking areas

Minimize energy usage 

from conventional 

sources

No CFC, HCFC, or Halon usage

Commissioning

Measurement and verifi cation

On-site wind power generation

Reduced energy consumption

Select environmentally 

responsible materials

Recycled-content materials

Forest Stewardship Council certifi ed 

 wood products

Local materials

Storage and collection of recyclables

Ensure good indoor air 

quality 

Carbon dioxide monitoring

Construction indoor air quality plan

High-effi ciency fi lters 

Low-VOC materials

Indoor chemical and pollution source

 control

Provide comfortable 

buildings for occupants

Conform to current standards for 

 ventilation and comfort

Daylighting and views for majority 

 of occupants

Individual control of airfl ow and 

 lighting on exterior and interior 

 zones

Minimize water usage Native plants 

Zero permanent irrigation systems

Low-fl ow water fi xtures to reduce 

 water onsumption by 31%

Community awareness Educational displays highlighting 

 sustainable features
and Air-Conditioning Engineers 

(ASHRAE).

Table 2 depicts the energy parameters of the base case and the recommended design case. On the basis of 

the 100% construction documents, 

with the energy offset from wind 

generation, a 31% reduction in 

energy usage and a 40% reduction 

in annual energy cost are expected 

over the code-complaint case. 

Other factors, such as maintenance 

and life cycle costs, are also important considerations. Thus, 6 of 10 

possible points for LEED’s Optimizing Energy Efficiency criteria 

will be achieved. 

Wind Energy

The BLM recently joined with the 

Department of Energy’s National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) to help Federal land managers promote land-use activities 

that will increase the development 

of renewable energy resources in the 

West. They found that the Rawlins 

planning unit, where wind speeds 

often exceeded 15 mph, was one 

of the top six sites studied. The 

RMH Group worked with Aerofire 

Windpower and NREL to devise 

a system for taking advantage 

of these favorable wind conditions. 

Two 20-kW wind turbines were 

originally proposed for meeting 

the existing building load. Unfortunately, because the local utility 

provider had a maximum net 

metering limit of 25 kW the BLM 

reduced the project to one 20-kW 

wind turbine, which is still predicted to offset electrical energy usage 

by 40% and save $1,260 per year 

according to research by NREL’s 

National Wind Technology Center. 

Rawlins will still earn two of three 

LEED points possible for renewable 

energy credits. 

Resource Conservation

The building design implements 

recycled content and local materials; sustainably harvested wood 

products; a white roof; a direct 

digital control system to monitor 

humidity, temperature, and carbon 

dioxide; and ultra–low-flow water 

fixtures. To reduce the effects the 

building might have on the site, the 

project team employed significant 

storm-water management and treatment with detention ponds and 

bioswales; selected native plants so 

that no permanent irrigation system 

is required; designed a living snow 

fence; minimized light pollution; 

and specified bicycle racks.

Conclusion

Although the term sustainable 

design was introduced only in the 

past decade, consultant teams are 

increasingly proficient in applying it and learning through the 

design process. The Rawlins Field 

Office project demonstrates that a 

highly sustainable building design 

based on the LEED program is 

achievable for BLM buildings. 

Once constructed, commissioned, 

and occupied, the building is 

expected to offer a comfortable and 

efficient workplace for BLM staff as 

it achieves its LEED certification.

Contact

Renee Azerbegi

Mechanical Engineer and LEED 

 Accredited Professional

The RMH Group

12600 West Colfax Avenue, 

Suite A-400

Lakewood, Colorado 80215

Phone: 303-239-0909

Fax: 303-235-0218

Email: razerbegi@rmhgroup.com 

and

Pat Fleming

Lead Civil Engineer and LEED 

 Accredited Professional

Bureau of Land Management

National Science and Technology 

 Center

Denver Federal Center

Building 50, P.O. Box 25047

Denver, CO 80225-0047

Phone: 303-987-6856

Fax: 303-987-6773

Email: Pat_Fleming@blm.gov

Range

Resource Note 70

Page 2

The Bureau of Land Management Resource Notes, 

which are posted on this Web site 

(http://www.blm.gov/nstc/resourcenotes/resnotes.html),

are early announcements of technical and informational 

topics for BLM personnel and their customers. Information contained in this Resource Note has not been 

peer-reviewed. Conclusions and opinions expressed herein 

do not necessarily represent those of BLM. Use of trade 

names does not imply U.S. government endorsement of 

commercial products.

Technical Editor - Deborah Harris 

(Debbie_Harris@blm.gov)

Science Editor - Brian St. George 

(Brian_St_George@blm.gov)

Graphic Designer - Ethel Coontz (Ethel_Coontz@blm.gov)

If you would like to prepare a Resource Note for 

electronic distribution, or if you have an idea or can 

suggest an author for a Resource Note, contact 

the Science Editor (e-mail: Brian_St_George@blm.gov; 

phone: 303-236-1930) with the topic and the 

name of the writer, including mailing address, 

phone number, and e-mail address.

Thank you for your interest in Resource Notes.

Table 2. Summary of energy analysis for American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standard compliant and design cases.

Energy cost and parameters Base case compliant to ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 (1999) Design case 

Energy cost ($ per year) 21,465.0 12,946.0 

Energy cost index ($ per sq ft per year) 0.68 0.41 

Percent reduction 40.0

Annual gas 

(MMBtu per year) 1,503.3 1,302.7

Annual electricity (MWh per year) 248.07 93.7

Annual peak demand (kW) 114.1 56.16

Energy use index (kBtu per sq ft per year) 74.5 51.4

Percent reduction 31.0