NC 2009 SSc5.1: Site Development—Protect or Restore Habitat

Zachary, I don't see anything in the requirements that would prevent you from doing this, but it seems quesitonable. I would ask if you are really going to go above and beyond to make these islands habitat for something(s)?

Thanks fro the response, Tristan. As it turns out, we have enough large tracts of restored habitat that counting the parking islands won't be necessary anyway, but now it's just a matter of properly reporting the square footages and marking the areas on the site plan. I think we will probably highlight the parking islands separately and report their total square footage to show that we still meet the 50% requirement even if we didn't count them.

Matthew,
It sounds like this vegetated area would be considered a graded site. This area would be included with your site calculations when complying with Case 2. This compliance path requires you to restore or protect your site with native / adaptive vegetation to meet the credit requirements.

The site is a greenfield thus CASE 1 is my only option. There is a large parking lot included in the new development. In this parking lot there is a grass "island" greater than twenty feet wide. Per the reference guide, parking area's only have a ten-foot buffer. So, do I really need to "protect" the strip inside this island beyond the ten-foot buffer? Seems silly. I would consider any islands such as this part of the parking lot development.

Thanks.
Matthew

Our LEED study group talked about this, and here's the thought process, (written up by one of our group):

I thought about it and I'm not sure that I can add much to the conversation.

My only thought is that no, he does not need to protect the island. If the whole site WAS a greenfield, that doesn't really matter in the context of the project. Matthew will be grading all around this 20' island and buffer, so it's not like it has any potential left for agriculture or wildlife habitat. He might as well just consider the island "graded" or "no longer a greenfield" as well and not worry about protecting it - which means including it in his site calculations. In fact, if he didn't do that (i.e. called that piece of land a greenfield and protected it), I might call it gerrymandering. He says himself, "I would consider any islands such as this part of the parking lot development" and I think anyone else would see them that way too. The intent to protect greenfields is not met by him protecting this island.

Matthew, it sounds like the islands are really part of the parking lot development.

I'm confused, though -- if the islkand is 20 feet wide and is surrounded by pavement, doesn't the 15-foot buffer around pavement cover the entire island? So you meet the reequirement either way.

Hi Ramon,

Here is the definition of 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.: Building 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.

So, is your basement part of the building structure? OR is it separate (ie. not beneath your building).

If it's part of the building structure I'd go with #3, if not then #2.

Hope that helps.

Rebecca, according to the credit language (see above), the land trust option is part of Case 2: 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. So by those rules, it is not available to your project. Since this appears to be your only chance to earn the credit and the owner wants to do the land trust option, perhaps getting 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 submitting with a narrative explaining the situation, would work.

Melissa, this is a bit of a gray area, but I would probably exclude that land, because it is not owned by the owner of the LEED project, and because it does not "support normal building operations," to use the MPR supplemental guidance terminology.

I think you could argue to include the land if you wanted to, but the cleaner and probably easier path is to exclude it.

Eduardo, first I would review the revised definition of 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." that USGBC included in its Nov. 2011 addenda. Roll over the green wording in your post to see that definition. I am not sure but perhaps that will help.

If you do determine that you need to combine options, I would try to make up a conservative case that you can justify... although I don't have an exact suggestion.

I haven't come across this situation before, but to be safe, I wouldn't count on the area beneath the PV panels contributing to either of the calculations.

Danny - It sounds like you would be able to earn the credit if the LEED site boundary includes a large enough area of qualifying vegetated area for Case 2 - the trees and new native plantings, for example. Make sure you check MPR #3 for the nuances of defining the site boundary, and you may want to verify that boundary makes sense for all the related site and water credits.

In the recently updated MPR guidance at
http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6473
there's a relevant example at the bottom of page 26 that leaves it up to the project team whether to include a retention pond.

Are you taking advantage of the Grasscrete in other SS credits? I think the only way out is to consider it paving but doubt that declaring it paving would really pass review. Have you attempted to find native turf grasses that would work?

it's my understanding that no turf grass is considered native. do you have other information?

Typical turf grass—monoculture Kentucky blue grass—is not considered native. But depending on your location, you may be able to find a mix of grasses that would satisfy the LEED requirement.

As Tristan mentions above, typical turf grass is not considered native. However if the grasses you have selected are considered native (indigenous to project region or adapted to local climate, and not invasive or noxious weeds), they can contribute to achieving the credit. The credit does not have any requirements in regards to care or maintenance so it does not matter whether it's mowed or left to grow.

There does appear to be a slight difference in language between the definition on page 77 and the one you mentioned in section 13 on page 84. I don't think any addenda have made any changes to these two definitions (though you'll want to check for sure) so it seems reasonable to follow the more detailed definition of "adaptive" on page 84. You'll want to make sure any species considered are not on any of USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service lists for invasive or noxious species. See LEED Interpretation inquiries number 1898 and 414 for similar cases.

Thanks for the LI numbers (easiest way to navigate it). In researching I found LI 185 which states: "A landscape architect can determine if a specific plant species qualifies as 'native or adaptive' for a project location."

And here is an interesting take on turfgrass in the calculations, which goes against reference guide language:
"....If you can demonstrate that the lawn selection, as part of your mixed landscape, meets the intent of the credit, then the lawn area can count towards this credit."

Shannon, this sounds like the most appropriate approach for your project. You may want to 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 or LEED Interpretation for confirmation from GBCI but if you are meeting all the case 1 requirements and limiting disturbance for the greenfield areas, and then also meeting case 2 requirements and protecting / restoring vegetation with the required %, I would see this as a reasonable compliance path to meet the credit. Let us know how it goes.

We did use that approach. We have earned SS C2 and used the green roof to achieve S 5.1. The roof has a mixture of plants similar to a natural meadow. The landscape architect consulted a biologist to find the right mixture of about 20 different plants. This project is in Germany and is now LEED CS V3.0 Platinum certified. We had no problem during the review.

Susann, was your project an extensive (shallow) green roof using sedums?

It's an extensive green roof but doesn't use sedums. It's a mixtures of herbs like Festuca ovina, Leontodon, Poa, Bellis perennis. So it looks like a natural wild grassland. The climate in Germany supports these species with enough rain and they also have temperatures, which are much less extreme than most climates in the US.So I'm not sure if this would work here.

Linda, where is your project located?

Thank you Susan. It sounds like your plant palette would easily be accepted as providing habitat by the LEED reviewers. Our project is located in the state of Maryland, USA. We are trying to determine if an extensive green roof of predominantly sedums can contribute to this credit. Tristan, do you have any experience with this?”

I don't have experience, but it has been my understanding that sedums are not seen as native/adapted according to LEED, in most locations. This post from the EBOM SSc5 forum sheds more light on this.

Linda,
I worked on an NCv2.2 project that achieved SSc5.1 and had an extensive green roof with sedums. However, the project had a great deal of open space and restored vegetated area and far exceeded the credit requirements even without the green roof plants. Are you relying on just the green roof sedums to achieve the credit? I would think if you are restoring other areas of the site with native / adaptive vegetation in addition to having the green roof sedums, you may have a better argument than if you just had the green roof plants.

Devon,
About 36% of the site will be restored 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. but we are relying on the green roof sedums to make up the rest. We are currently researching studies on proven cases where extensive green roofs have been shown to provide habitat for insects and birds in urban areas. I am sure that the green roof will provide significant value and hope to make the case to GBCI.
Has anyone tried to make this case or come across studies of green roofs providing habitat?

Linda,
If your project is in the DC area, there is a plant list published through the Smithsonian that may be of help to you. However, sedums are alpine plants accustomed to rocky soil. That does not describe most of Maryland. If your project is in the panhandle, you may have a case.

I imagine the canopies are simply a "roofed over area". If that is the case then it should not be included in the 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..

Canopies are usually not considered part of the 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.. Most projects use the "building envelope," or the shell of the building to define the footprint.

LEED defines the footprint as "the perimeter of the building plan" but that still leaves some situations unclear. In many cases the building plan is the same as the boundary of occupied or conditioned space, but in hot climates this can get harder to define since many occupied spacesOccupied Spaces are defined as enclosed spaces that can accommodate human activities. Occupied spaces are further classified as regularly occupied or non-regularly occupied spaces based on the duration of the occupancy, individual or multi-occupant based on the quantity of occupants, and densely or non-densely occupied spaces based upon the concentration of occupants in the space. can be open to the outdoors. Since the area under a canopy or awning is usually not enclosed space, you probably wouldn't include it in the building foot print. Sometimes you'll need to use your best judgement to define what is "inside" and what is "outside."

I wasn't familiar with brown roofs prior to your question—they seem pretty cool. I think they should be allowed, but they're not anticipated by the credit language or requirments. I think you could make a case for this on your submittal, or 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 in advance to know for sure.

I don't have experience with brown roofs meeting the credit requirements but think it could be a good option to submit a LEED interpretations or 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 as Tristan suggested.

Eric, a lot of this hinges on your definitin of "narrow," but it's hard to imagine that this site was not graded at some point, or more. If based on the terrain of the site and contrasting with any neighboring ungraded terrain you think this is the case, I would 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.".

Turf grass, aka sod, is not counted as an adaptive species, even if not watered. Even if it can survive unwatered, does it provide any real habitat for native specieis, or promote biodiversity? Probably not.

Another pertinent consideration for SSc5.1 - Case 2 is listed on the bottom of page 78 in the Implementation section, here you will note that to be compliant plantings must not only be native or adapted they must also not be a monoculture. That said there are many types of "sod" and depending on your location a mix of grass species may meet the credit requirements. In many locations there are native grasses that are so hardy they have been cultivated for use as "sod" planting. I suggest you visit with your landscape Architect to determine if there is a mix of sod species (so it won't be a monoculture) that meets the credit criteria and your client's needs.

Brooks, this sounds like the right approach for the situation. Did you have any specific questions about this path?

Hi--thanks for your reply. I have a couple of v2009 projects that will pursue this compliance path.
I also have a v2.2 with "limited landscape opportunity" that would like to pursue it as well, Do you or anyone else feel that we may be successful using this as an alternative compliance path for a v2.2 project? I can not locate any v2.2 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 that would support this. THANK YOU!

I would be fairly confident that this would also apply to a v2.2 project. USGBC has pretty much stopped updating the v2.2 system, but there is some precedent that changes like this for 2009 projects can also apply to v2.2. There's no way of knowing for sure without getting 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 just submitting the credit (or perhaps an email to your reviewer would also do it), but it should be okay. Let us know what happens.

Yes, I would say so.

I am working on a project with the same characteristics mentioned above.

There is a detention pond which was calculated to be flooded only in extreme situations.

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. will be plant in the detention pond area, which qualify the area for the credit purposes. However, as only water tolerant grass will be planted, the area might be considered as a monoculture planting.

According to the reference guide, monoculture plantings cannot contribute to the credit requirements even if they meet the definition of native or adapted vegetation.

The detention pond area represents only 4% of the total vegetated area. The remained vegetated areas do not configure monoculture planting. Considering this situation, is the detention pond area qualified for the credit purposes?

Anderson, can you provide some more details on the rest of the vegetation planned for the site? What percentage of the remaining vegetation (outside of that planted in the detention pond) will be adapted or native?

The total vegetated area is equal to 652,148 sf.

The detention pond area is equal to 26,086 sf, which represents 4% of the total vegetated area, as mentioned above.

The remaining vegetation area, outside of that planted in the detention pond, is equal to 626,062 sf. From which 385,083 sf will not be irrigated, since it is an existing reforestation area. The remained area, 240,979 sf, will be irrigated. 100% of both areas will be adapted or native plants.

Thanks for the additional info Anderson. What is your site area? To meet the credit requirements you need to have the larger of either 50% of the site area (excluding 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.) or 20% of the site area as native or adapted. Unless there is a large portion of hardscape as part of your site, if 100% of your vegetated area outside of the detention pond is planned for adapted / native vegetationPlants indigenous to a locality (native) and adapted to the local climate; they require limited irrigation following planting, do not require active maintenance such as mowing, and provide habitat value., even with the monoculture detention pond, it looks like you would be ok to meet the requirements.

Do you have a landscape architect you're working with? Is there a local agricultural or university resource? Where in China? There's a huge amount of variation.