NC 2009 SSc1: Site Selection

I would say, since destroying ANY wetland is not a sustainable practice, this will not fly with USGBC.

The park method is different since a park is not a natural habitat and a new one can just be built. Though I suppose you could argue that you can "rebuild" a wetland in another area, it's really not the same.  

I very much agree with Emily. Looking at the LEED 2012 draft, where construction in wetlands are completely prohibited except minimal impact structures. Also this is proposed as prerequisite. LT p1 http://bit.ly/ytYNFL
So even though this not official language in the current version and I also don't know of any 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 that regards, I would be surprised if the USGBC rules in your favor based on that.

I totally agree, thanks for your input.

I had never heard of land-banking before and it seems to be an emerging concept as a way of mitigating wetlands on site in terms of the development world and something LEED should address possibly in the next iteration.

If communities are legitimately creating more wetlands by pooling them in specialized, permanently undeveloped areas it may have a larger benefit for the community. But at the same time, wetlands are where they are for a reason so I can see benefit to requiring them to remain where they are created.

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?

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!

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.

Jose, we do have a place to post non-credit-specific LEED certification questions, and there is a forum for campus issues. There is a LEED 2009 campus application guide, which could be of some help, but it doesn't allow exactly what you are looking for.

Kelly, the credit language states that park authority projects are exempt from the parkland requirement for this credit. Is this your situation, by any chance?

I don't think so, but it's worth double checking. This is more of a municipal park (recA Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) is a certificate representing proof that a given unit of electricity was generated from a renewable energy source such as solar or wind. These certificates are able to be sold, traded, or bartered as environmental commodities, where an electricity consumer can buy the renewable energy attributes of electricty to support renewable energy, even if they are consuming generic grid-supplied electricity that may be supplied by nonrenewable sources. center, soccer fields, concessions, softball, etc). But I am fairly confident that I can explain the situation in the narrative to earn the credit.

It sounds to me like you're the "park authority" in this case. I think you could describe in the narrative and have a good chance of compliance.

It's probably fine to stick to the template because of the urban location (assumed not to be prime farmland, park or habitat) and the site is "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."," which exempts the site from the flood and water body requirements. However, you may want to demonstrate that the site is 100 feet from wetlands.

To what extent does the wall constitute hardscape, e.g. concrete? Does "segmented" mean precast?

To what extent is there an engineered bed under the Grasspave?

I would have some caution about this situation, but it doesn't seem inconceivable that you could comply.

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.

Yes you can pursue this credit for certification. But its is safe from only those "previously undeveloped" criteria. You should check the other criteria as well.

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 is not subject to the credit requirement of no building within 50 feet of a water body. You'd still have to stay 100 feet from any wetlands and met the other credit requirements as well.

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...

The elevation would be considered "at grade," i.e. the site elevation, not the building. (Since the credit is about "site selection," not building design.)

In this case, I think you could meet the requirement by adding 6 inches of fill.

Hold on, I need to retract part of what I said.

If the site is previously undeveloped, I don't think you can just add fill to meet the requirement. You may want to do that anyway to get above the floodplain, but I don't think you could earn SSc1. Sorry for my confusion.

For this project, it's nearly impossible to add fill at this stage, I'd probably just give up this credit, and focusing on earning more points from other credits. Thanks!

With the floodplain and wetland requirements there are exceptions for 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, but there is not an exception for farmland in the credit language. I don't see a way the project could earn SSc1.

We have had a couple of sites that were shown as prime farmland by the USDA's Web Soil Survey but were surrounded by development. I contacted my local USDA representative and asked for an evaluation for possible exemption. In both cases we were granted an exemption due to the low probability that the land could be usable for agricultural purposes. You may need to make arrangements for your local USDA representative to visit the site, but often times they can make a determination without a visit.
That said, it is sort of sad that just because a tract of prime soils is small and surrounded by development that we should "give up hope" of it being farmed.

Summer- absolutely! They are primarily concerned with creating that 100 ft buffer, so as long as you do not develop within 100 ft (and meet the other credit requirements of course!) you can definitely achieve the credit.