Sujata, I don't know where specifically this figure came from, although I assume it relates to precedents set by some U.S. zoning regulations.

Babar, you do need to confirm that you meet the requirements. There is advice on doing this above. The documentation, as you note, is very simple. Just include the documentation LEED asks for, and nothing more.

Kris, I think the credit language is intentional on this point—and you wouldn't be able to earn the credit. As a consolation, your work should help with SSc5, SSc6, and SSc7.

Thanks Tristan. I think I agree with you, but it seems counterintuitive to LEED's push to develop on previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development." land because we could theoretically get this point by developing on a greenfield instead of on land that was developed decades ago when preserving wetlands was not on many people's radar. Since this project is likely going to the effort of restoring wetland that was previously developed, I may still attempt this credit under a "special circumstance" or "alternative compliance path." Can't hurt to try anyway, I suppose. Thanks again.

I see your point, but a counterargument would be that we should generally pull back from wetlands rather than maintaining development that encroaches on them. And this is a credit, not a prereq—and your restoration work will be recognized under the credits I mentioned.

It's a complex issue and tough to make a single rule that makes sense in all cases. I like where LEED v4 is going with this, with a site assessment credit, where you get credit just for doing an integrated analysis of siting and other issues.

You might need a 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 or LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. to get an exception to such a black-and-white credit requirement.

Kris, I'd like to amend my earlier advice and recommend contacing GBCI through their website to seek advice on whether you can proceed with documenting the credit in this way, or if you'd need an official ruling in the form of a 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 or LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. to continue. GBCI is now encouraging this kind of direct communication.

Tristan,
Thanks for the follow up. In the interim, I also discovered that this particular "wetland" was a human creation and not one that was there naturally on the site prior to the development. This adds yet another level of complication to the documentation of SSc1 for this specific site. I will try to contact GBCI directly and see how they respond. I will provide an update in here if/when they do.

Tristan,

Update: I sent an email directly to GBCI, but have not yet heard back. When the time comes, I intend to submit the credit with an explanation of our "special circumstance" and see what happens. Personally, I feel that we are meeting the intent and requirements within reason as well as going to the extra measure of restoring and building wetlands. But, I realize my opinion isn't what counts.

Thanks,
Kris

Thank you for your question, asking whether keeping an existing road that is approximately 80' from the a constructed/developed wetland on a previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development." site will prevent the project from achieving SSc1.

As long as there is no grading, utility installation, or other alteration of the existing road, the location of the existing road should not affect the ability of the project to earn SSc1. The scope of this credit addresses new development or alterations, rather than existing work, per the guidance on page 17 of the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction, 2009 Edition (Updated June 2010): "Do not DEVELOP buildings, hardscapeHardscape consists of the inanimate elements of the building landscaping. Examples include pavement, roadways, stone walls, concrete paths and sidewalks, and concrete, brick, and tile patios., roads or parking areas on portions of sites that meet any of the following criteria..." An existing road, if not altered in any way, is not considered new development, and thus, would not be included in the scope of this credit.

You also asked how a constructed wetland would be viewed by the reviewer. For LEED- BD+C 2009 projects, constructed wetlands are included in the scope of a wetland. Please see the reference standards for this credit (the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR, Parts 230-233 and Part 22, or a local equivalent definition outside the U.S., and isolated wetlands or areas of special concern identified by state or local rule, etc.) for more information.

Also, it was pointed out that the exception provided for previously developed flood plains and proximity to water bodies isn't provided for wetlands. This is correct. These exceptions allow NEW development in those areas if they were previously developed. This exception is not extended to wetland areas.

We hope that this helps, but please let us know if you have additional questions and we will be glad to help.

Yes, a renovation can earn SSc1 if you meet the credit requirements.

If the project is outside the United States, but I use the definition of Prime Farmland as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Volume 6, Parts 400 to 699, Section 657.5 (citation 7CFR657.5).

Do I have to check the box "Is the project located outside the U.S. and using a local equivalent"?

Regards

VIctor, I don't think you need to check the box in that case.

Jennifer, the by-the-book answer would be no. However, there is a clear case to be made to waive this requirement here. I think you would need to get a 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 or LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. to know one way or the other.

If you proceed with this and get any guidance from GBCI, let us know!

Lisa, the prime farmland definition in the credit language is pretty specific, so I'd say that you fall outside of that. Previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development." sites are not exempt from the requirement.

Lisa, you can find the definition here: http://1.usa.gov/UKzf0t

The definition says that "land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated" this would be the case of a parquing lot, at least here in Spain. There is a real damage related to the parking like, for example, the lost of engine oil in the soil... Would LEED consider this correct reasoning?

I would agree with you. Your site is consider previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development.", if a parking lot was located on it before. But be careful with the new definition per addendum 11/1/2011 "altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling .. are considered undeveloped land."

Thanks Susann! We've recently discovered that previously there was an archery field instaled on the site, also that there is an underground electric line instaled. Would these activities/instalations also count to justify "non previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development.""?

The utility line (electric line) makes it previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development.". So you are good.

Hi Sussan, I have a similar situation to the one above. We are working on a project with a site at the edge of a university campus. There is a parking lot and we are just on the other side of it. Our site seems to have been a dumping ground for fill dirt over the years, which I know does not allow us to call it previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development.", and there was never a building located there. But there is a 5'x5' storm drain located approx. 50' into our site with a buried 36" concrete pipe running from it. From what I can tell, our site should be considered previously developed because of this. Is this correct?

If the storm drain was a permitted alteration, so it's in the cities maps and drawings, for sure I would consider it previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development.". Just be careful to not stretch it to far. if the pipe is only going through a small part of a large site, than I would consider it a stretch and the reviewer may see it the same way.

I hope that helps.

It depends and you will probably submit an 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 to get final clarification. One can argue that the area immediately surrounding the building can't be used for agriculture, but if you are building a big parking lot on top of the prime farmland than you will be at a loss. I hope that helps.
Good luck.

If this is just campus grounds and not a park you should be fine. I have had a project in Europe with a similar setting as you have described above. The difficulty for non-US projects is to show equivalence to all the US definitions. Use local laws and regulations, which may prevent you form using such areas anyway, or zoning maps to show that you are meeting the intent of the credit.

Bohyun,

Can you please clarify what you mean by "reclaimed land from the sea"? Has this land been filled in? If so it would not qualify for LEED simply because the land is "artificial," so to speak. 

Also, unless there has been a building or other "development" (a parking lot for example) on the site you cannot call it "previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development."."

Thanks a lot Emily for your response,

Simply, the government made a reclaimed land which was previously sea(wetland) in order for sale. After that this was handed over to the owner. So the subject reclaiming the sea is not the owner.
Moreover, this is located in the downtown so most of other sites surrounding this project are fully developed already.

Your answer would be very helpful.

Thank you in advance.

This is definitely not considered previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development.". Sorry

Dear Bohyun, what’s the status with your project? Did you have to give up on LEED certification?

Does not completing the water feature in Phase 1 impact any credits for Phase 1? I would recommend that you modify your credit spreadsheets for Phase 1. Your LEED boundaries can overlap and even build upon each other. However, you want to make sure that Phase 1 is accurate before trying to gain credit for the work in Phase 2. Any reviewer will want to know why your are taking credit for something they would consider already competed unless you modify Phase 1 forms.

The water feature itself was NOT included in our submittal for Phase 1. The land and open space was included in Phase 1 for the LEED Project Area and SSc5.2. Phase 1 was accurate based on the project itself.
That being said, since Phase 1 did benefit from the open area where the water feature is going in Phase 2, how is that accounted for in our Phase 2 submittal?

That's a tricky question, how did you resolve this? It sounds like the water feature should be included in your Phase 2 boundary as it is part of your scope. However, when you submit the open space credit you confirm that the open space will remain for the life of the building. Would you have earned the open space credit without the area that will now be a water feature?

Unfortunately you do not meet the criteria of the credit even thought I understand your argument. You might want to submit an 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 in order to get an exception for your case. But one can also argue you could still not use actual farm land and do your project. Also make sure you are in compliance with the MPRs and the 2% for building footprintBuilding footprint is the area on a project site used by the building structure, defined by the perimeter of the building plan. Parking lots, parking garages, landscapes, and other nonbuilding facilities are not included in the building footprint. vs. site. It sound like you will be very close to the cutoff. Best of luck with your project.

Hi Susann--Thanks very much--I get your logic. Regarding your comment about MPR #7, the gross floor areaGross floor area (based on ASHRAE definition) is the sum of the floor areas of the spaces within the building, including basements, mezzanine and intermediate‐floored tiers, and penthouses wi th headroom height of 7.5 ft (2.2 meters) or greater. Measurements m ust be taken from the exterior 39 faces of exterior walls OR from the centerline of walls separating buildings, OR (for LEED CI certifying spaces) from the centerline of walls separating spaces. Excludes non‐en closed (or non‐enclosable) roofed‐over areas such as exterior covered walkways, porches, terraces or steps, roof overhangs, and similar features. Excludes air shafts, pipe trenches, and chimneys. Excludes floor area dedicated to the parking and circulation of motor vehicles. ( Note that while excluded features may not be part of the gross floor area, and therefore technically not a part of the LEED project building, they may still be required to be a part of the overall LEED project and subject to MPRs, prerequisites, and credits.) of our project building is more than 2% of the gross land area within the project LEED boundary. Since we are impacting only a small percentage of the owner's property and literally not touching much of it, we will be drawing a reasonable LEED boundary that only includes that land impacted, and lands that are associated with/supports normal building operations. Thanks again!

If the project is on Prime Farmland, it sounds like the answer is no. Did you confirm that the farm is Prime Farmland against the referenced definition? If the credit is not critical to your score you can always submit and make your case, or submit a 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 to confirm your case prior to submittal.

Jonathan, this seems like an unusual situation—not one that I have experience with. My educated guess would be that this kind of path would not work for SSc1, particularly when you consider that aspects of what you are describing sound a lot like something you could get credit for under SSc5.1.

As you suggest, it sounds like the answer is no. You could make your case via a 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, but it sounds like your approach doesn't meet the credit intent. The mitigation and restoration sounds like the right approach otherwise.

Hi Jonathan
Any update on this credit for your project as i am facing similar situation and any help would be appreciated!
Thank you

I would say you can, yes, based on the credit language. However, I think the spirit of what LEED is going for here would suggest you should keep this as limited as possible in every way, including distance from the wetland.

LEEDuser has a tipsheet on determining floodplain classification with FEMA data that may be worth consulting.

However, this will only have data for U.S. projects. For non-U.S. projects, this is a challenging point to document. I don't have any particular tips on doing this, sorry!

“Definition/Description
The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. This is the regulatory standard also referred to as the "100-year flood." The base flood is the national standard used by the NFIP and all Federal agencies for the purposes of requiring the purchase of flood insurance and regulating new development. Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) are typically shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs).”
You could use the flood-plane level of the worst recorded flood on records. This will be worse than the FEMA statistical 100-year flood.

If you don't have at least 100 years worth of flood level records you'll probably have to approach a statistician to extrapolate something half plausible. I’ve read that this can be done for rain events for rainfall rates (Natural resources engineering By Ernest W. Tollner ) (which includes a statistical plausibility test), but since my knowledge terminates at around this point I’m not going to point you to a suitable equation (or set of many equations). Look in google books for Natural resources engineering By Ernest W. Tollner. It may have something in here that answers your question.

Another good read is the sample case
http://www.fema.gov/library/file?type=publishedFile&file=dfm_dfft.pdf&fi...
which suggests using hydrological engineering methods to calculate in effect the maximum run-off rates and quantities.

See also
http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/legacysoftware/hec1/hec1-download...