EBOM 2009 SSc5: Site Development—Protect or Restore Open Habitat

Frederick, I don't think this would work this time around—maybe when you recertify in a few years. LEED-EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. certification is meant to measure current practices at the project building.

Hi Alyson, To the best of my knowledge I don't think there are any exceptions to LPEs and you would need to have an RLA sign off for credit compliance.

Hi Lauren,
There aren't explicit requirements for calculating native tree areas, but a good approach would be to use a reasonable estimate of the ground level area around the native tree that takes up the suitable growing area (in between the trunk and the canopy). The mulch area would not be considered native, so not included in the calculations.

I have not seen this approach pursued before, but think it is worth trying - for the performance period, provide documentation that includes the contract, the site area planned to be restored, the anticipated volunteers, plan for restoration, and any other supporting documentation that demonstrates compliance with the credit requirements.

To chime in here, in my experience the expectation is by no means a "completed" restoration project, because really, no restoration project is ever done giving that some element of ongoing effort is inevitable. That being said, you will need to be show that the project is real, there is a viable plan in place, and a commitment to following that plan. Even if you are at the early stages of completing the physical work, there is much planning that should already be complete, and you can point to that in demonstrating that the project is a real one.

David, relative to LEED I don't think there are any hard-and-fast rules about the amount you have to pay. You just have to work it out with the entities involved.

I agree with Tristan that there are no hard and fast rules, but it should be based on the actual costs associated with the offsite area you are helping to protect. If the restoration costs are X for 1 acre, and you need to support 1 acre, the general idea is that you would pay X. This will vary from site to site though.

Yu-ju, this question has come up several times on LEEDuser—if you search the site I think you will find another discussions about it.

The consensus so far has been that it would be difficult to count vertical green walls for this credit. There are several reasons I can think of for why this is difficult—key reasons include the question of how you would calculate vertical area as comparable to horizontal area; and how would you show that vertical habitat is comparable to regular habitat.

I could imagine being able to get credit at a discounted rate, such as 2 square meters of vertical count as 1 square meter of horizontal, but it would be up to the project to prove that this is appropriate.

If you do proceed, please let us know how it goes. Any if anyone else has done this, please speak up!

I haven't been in this situation, but I doubt you will find that anyone has had success with this. The LEED standards for native/adapted plants are fairly strict. However, it may be a good nudge to LEED to try it! The last idea, about exotics being specially adapted, seems like the most likely one of the ideas you gave. If you do try it, let us know how it goes.

Thanks for your thoughts Tristan. I will let the forum know how it goes.

Similar question for us - we use plants that are technically native to Korea (partially as a cultural exchange exercise), but since we are in the same latitude as Korea, they are well adapted to our region. Is the term "adaptive" then somewhat open to interpretation? Or is it really limited to just "cultivars of natives."

Thanks.

Emily, I think LEED's definition of adapted vegetationAdapted (or introduced) plants reliably grow well in a given habitat with minimal winter protection, pest control, fertilization, or irrigation once their root systems are established. Adapted plants are considered low maintenance and not invasive. would allow for what you describe, although it is always up to some interpretation.

I can't answer this question myself Richard but I hope someone else can speak to this if there has been a policy change. Historically the process/strategy you describe has been specifically allowed by reviewers - its hard for me to imagine why USGBC/GBCI would decide to create an additional barrier to the added benefit that this kind of retroactive opportunity allows. I'm hoping its a reviewer misunderstanding rather than a structural change.

Richard - my understanding is that you can execute the contract whenever you want (similar to RECs for renewable energy, this usually happens during the performance period, but not necessarily), but may want to make clear in the documentation that the $$ donated is intended to retroactively sponsor restoration/habitat protection activities that overlapped with the performance period.

The SS TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. is contemplating now how to handle this pesky timing mismatch for the next version of LEED, so feel free to chime in if you have suggestions.

Stephen, counting turf towards habitat is always prohibited, whether there are other plants kicking around or not.

Melissa, there is no limit on where the land is located that I am aware of.

I agree with Tristan - the current requirements don't stipulate where the offsite area should be located.

In line with the above - can we add big areas of contained soil w/ native/adapted vegetationAdapted (or introduced) plants reliably grow well in a given habitat with minimal winter protection, pest control, fertilization, or irrigation once their root systems are established. Adapted plants are considered low maintenance and not invasive. (not potted) on top of pavement (roof deck, other elevated concreted areas) to the claimed restored open habitat?

Pablo - I am interested to hear others' take on this, but my suggestion would be to look to the credit intent to address the variety of circumstances you have outlined. The intent of the credit is to provide habitat and promote biodiversity - the area of native & adapted vegetationAdapted (or introduced) plants reliably grow well in a given habitat with minimal winter protection, pest control, fertilization, or irrigation once their root systems are established. Adapted plants are considered low maintenance and not invasive. is simply the metric for doing so. A potted plant standing alone on a roof deck may in fact be native/adapted, but its hard to imagine it is actually providing habitat or promoting biodiversity. A large planter with a regionally appropriate mix of native/adapted plants may fit that bill more accurately, while a vegetated roof of this nature almost certainly would. So I would counsel you to consider your options from the perspective of meeting the credit intent and your ability to convince the reviewer that the intent is indeed met. Hope that helps.

Thank you Dan.
The roof deck area is quite big and the planting area is quite a spread of shrubs with diversity, - so not potted plant nor a series of such, and has been there for a few years. We can support this claim w/ photos.
Regards.

Pablo,
I would suggest it best to take a conservative approach and not include the branch cover or canopy area that shades the turf as part of your native plant area calculations.

Yes, this credit is documented by showing the area of planted area that is supporting the landscaping.

If you have a tree with a large canopy that extends beyond the planting bed or planting strip you still need to use the area of the pervious, landscaped soil. I have seen a review that denied an attempt to count the canopy area that was larger than the planter bed area. Hope that helps!

Thanks for your reply, David. I'll run with your advice and see where that gets us.

Yes, I would say so, provided you follow the guidelines I discussed in the Washington U example.

Great. Will do. Thanks.

No, not to meet the requirements of SSc5. You would have to do this for SSc3, however.

I would assume that it would suffice to upload a letter from an authority at your organization, on official letterhead, detailing what habitat projects and area will be associated with the project building, and how the credit requirements will be met.

You would want to avoid counting the same area for multiple LEED buildings, so allocating a certain number of acres to this building and documenting that in some way would probably make sense.

Thanks Tristan for your advice. Ideally, we would state that 1/2 acre is set aside from the site's total of 2 acres. Specifying a particular plot on the site would be less ideal, but if you think that would be necessary, we could try that.

Jordan, I see, I was under the impression you wanted the 1/2 acre to be somewhere off in the 2,000-acre campus. If it's on the project site, that's not a big deal. I would just designate the area on the site plan.

Tristan, I'm sorry, I was a little unclear. We are on a campus, but we own a 2,000 acre piece of property held in conservation about 30 miles away. It is on that property that we would like to designate 1/2 acre as protected off-site habitat. My question is whether we would need a site plan of the off-site property with the designated space marked, or whether we could rely solely on saying that 1/2 acre of our off-site property is set aside for this LEED project (not specifying the exact location but using simple math). Thanks so much for your replies.

The documentation requested by LEED Online for the off-site restoration option does not indicate that very much detail is required. The contract seems to be the key piece there.

I would recommend, however that the more detail you can provide about how the 1/2-acre will be uniquely assigned to this project, the better, in order to make the claim as credible as possible, and to avoid double-counting.

Is there a length of time requirement for off site support? I would imagine you have to commit to at least the period of performance?

To followup on Jordan's comment a bit - Tristan is on track, I'm just going to add some detail from the LRG, pg 37.
"Enough detail should be used in contractual documents to clearly define the responsibilities and expected outcomes of the agreement."

For Eric, you are correct. The contract would be, at the very least, for the length of the performance period.

Eric, just curious... did you end up submitting for this credit back in September? (and for the duration of the performance period only?) we're looking to submit off-site restoration on an EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. project soon & just can't find anything beyond this conversation about length of time for a contract with an off-site organization. just curious the feedback you got from LEED reviewers / if - indeed - the Performance Period was what you submitted for & was approved. thanks!

think i just found the answer myself, by reviewing the information contained in the LEED online LPE tabs, which is, fortunately, quite specific and detailed.

Great, glad you found that. Feel free to post again if you learn anything interesting in the course of your process.

The credit language (see above) explicitly mentions water bodies, so it's clear that your approach here is possible.

I think the burden of proof will be on you to show that the water body is truly a natural area that promotes biodviersity. Some things to consider might be what is the vegetation surrounding the pond (native or adapted plants, not turf grass), vegetation in the pond (no aquatic invasives), does the pond have a natural shape and slope that allows it to blend into the landscape and provide a variety of habitats? What does a natural pond in your region look like, and how does it compare with your pond?

I have seen geese and ducks at lots of ponds that I wouldn't consider "natural habitat" for the area that they're in, so I wouldn't call it a day just yet, but this seems doable.

Are the trees invasive or noxious species in your area? If not, they might be considered adaptive (see credit language), and they could contribute to the credit. The fact that they're not native is not enough reason to give up yet!

I had read the language and while the trees are not considered invasive or noxious, they are not native cultivars either.

I'm a big fan of going all native, but it seems a shame to tear down large trees for the credit. I'm in SoCal and there aren't many large trees in our urban areas.

Yes, I checked with a colleague and they noted that they have felt that the LEED definition of adapted vegetationAdapted (or introduced) plants reliably grow well in a given habitat with minimal winter protection, pest control, fertilization, or irrigation once their root systems are established. Adapted plants are considered low maintenance and not invasive. is overly restrictive. "I’ve always thought of adapted as simply being non-invasive plants that have adjusted to the climate and need little maintenance" was her comment.

I would suggest that getting a LEED point isn't worth cutting down some nice trees.

Geoff - I'm not an expert in this particular area, but I'm fairly confident in saying that you shouldn't cut down those trees. The intent of the credit is to provide habitat and biodiversity, and replacing an established healthy tree with some native shrubbery is, in my mind, a clear step backwards. I think you can safely measure the SF of vegetation based on the ground, not the canopy, and I'm hopeful that would accurately illustrate the habitat value of your landscaping. But I think Tristan was spot on in saying a LEED point isn't worth cutting down good trees.

I couldn't say for sure, but with other credits (like LEED-NC SSc4.3) LEED does not allow you to round up. You could try rounding up, or tweaking the calculations to make it work, but be prepared to have it questioned during LEED review.

There's no requirement to use an landscape architect to achieve this credit, but it can be helpful.

Nell, there aren't exacting USGBC definitions for diversity of habitat relative to this credit.

USGBC defines "adapted vegetationAdapted (or introduced) plants reliably grow well in a given habitat with minimal winter protection, pest control, fertilization, or irrigation once their root systems are established. Adapted plants are considered low maintenance and not invasive." as "plants [that] reliably grow well in a given habitat with minimal winter protection, pest control, fertilization, or irrigation once their root systems are established. Adapted plants are considered low maintenance and not invasive."

I would consult with your landcape architect to confirm that the plants selected meet that description, especially if they're not native. Having a mix of plants and knowing that those plants provide habitat for specific local fauna—a specific local species of butterfly or songbird, for example—would ensure you're in compliance. With an intensive roof you should be able to do this.

There is a Licensed Professional Exemption (LPE) path available for this credit, by the way.

Nell,

Without substantial documentation from your landscape architect describing the habitat created by sedums and succulants, it is unlikely your roof will meet the credit requirements. Sedums and succulants are mostly low-lying plants (inherantly lacking a diversity of plant size) and they are not known for their habitat providing charactistics.

This requirement comes from the LEED for New Construction Rating System. A LEED-NC CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide from 2007 provides more information around this issue:

9/7/2007 - Credit Interpretation Request
This inquiry is about the accepted non-native sedum based plant mix that will meet credit requirements for green roof system. The facility is located in Boston MA area, USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 6a. Native New England is heavily forested, relatively damp and contains soil with high organic content. A roof top in New England is in full sun, windy, dry and includes mostly inorganic lightweight minerals for soil media with relatively low organic content. Based on this most native species will not survive the rooftop environment without significant levels of maintenance including regular watering and fertilization.

The sedums, succulents and other hardy plants that compose traditional green roof plant palettes are ideally suited for the New England rooftop climate. They would be the lowest maintenance for a green roof system, requiring no permanent irrigation, limited fertilization (annual slow release only), no herbicide or pesticide treatments and overall minimal attention from humans.

The green roof system we are asking for acceptance on is:
Primary - system
 15% Sedum spurium, Dragon's Blood
 15% sedum kamtschaticum var., floriferum, Weihenstephaner Gold
 15% Sedum album, Murale
 15% Sedum ternatum, (North American native)
 10% Sedum oreganum, (North American native)
 10% Sedum rupestre, Angelina
 10% Sedum spurium, John Creech
 10% Sedum kamtschaticum
Secondary - system - 25% of the primary palette to be replaced with mix of at least two of the following:
 Allium schoenoprasum (North American native)
 Opuntia humifusa (North American native)
 Sedum cauticola, cauticola Lidakense or cauticola Betram Anderson
 Sedum reflexum
 Sedum spurium Tricolor

10/25/2007 - Ruling
The project is inquiring about the acceptability of a non-native plant mix for their vegetated roof. While the stated plant list (predominantly varieties of sedum) meets the definition of native/adaptive, it does not meet the SS Credit 5.1 intent of providing habitat and promoting biodiversity.

While a number of sedum varieties are proposed, the planting is still essentially a monoculture of species similar in size and lacking in habitat value.