You are right, no exemplary performanceIn LEED, certain credits have established thresholds beyond basic credit achievement. Meeting these thresholds can earn additional points through Innovation in Design (ID) or Innovation in Operations (IO) points. As a general rule of thumb, ID credits for exemplary performance are awarded for doubling the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold. However, this rule varies on a case by case basis, so check the credit requirements. for this case as there is no calculations. :)

That is the opposite of what I was thinking. Even though you aren't asked to calculate the percentage for the base credit, I thought you could still do it for exemplary performanceIn LEED, certain credits have established thresholds beyond basic credit achievement. Meeting these thresholds can earn additional points through Innovation in Design (ID) or Innovation in Operations (IO) points. As a general rule of thumb, ID credits for exemplary performance are awarded for doubling the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold. However, this rule varies on a case by case basis, so check the credit requirements.

Sorry, I got it wrong, but the exemplary performanceIn LEED, certain credits have established thresholds beyond basic credit achievement. Meeting these thresholds can earn additional points through Innovation in Design (ID) or Innovation in Operations (IO) points. As a general rule of thumb, ID credits for exemplary performance are awarded for doubling the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold. However, this rule varies on a case by case basis, so check the credit requirements. paragraph in this credit mentioned only 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." Areas or Graded Sites)

Hi Yasir,
There is actually some ambiguity in this definition. Here is what I received from the USGBC when I brought it to their attention.

"It appears that there is a discrepancy between the latest 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." site in the Glossary of the Reference Guide Addenda (see page 53 of this document: https://new.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/DocumentAddendaRG%20BD+C%2010....) and the definition in the footnote to SSc5.1 of the LEED-NC v2009 Rating System, even in the latest version of the Rating System document (https://new.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/LEED%202009%20Rating_NC-GLOBAL...).

You are free to utilize either definition, as they are both published as applicable. Please note that we recommend using the revised definition from the Reference Guide Addenda below:

"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 footprintThe development footprint is the total area of the building footprint and area affected by development or by project site activity. Hardscape, access roads, parking lots, nonbuilding facilities, and the building itself are all included in 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."

I would consider it previously developed by virtue of the grading.

Hi M K

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. #10231 indicates that green roofs must be an intensive roof system (where the depth of the growing medium is 6 inches or more) and have more than six varieties of sedum to contribute to this credit. It's unlikely that window boxes or planters could be counted.

Hope this helps!
Karin

No as the intention of the greenfield option is to protect the site area outside of the disturbance allowance from any disturbance. Despite not having trees, a greenfield site is defined as having never been graded or altered by human activity.

Todd, you also posted this question to the v2.2 forum. Which version is your project under? It makes a difference with this credit.

In any case, have you reviewed our guidance above, especially the discussion of off-site restoration under the credit language and FAQs?

Tristan, we are working under the v2009 (my post in the v2.2 was a mistake). Thank you for the reference to the resources; they are very helpful.

Tristan,
Do you know if in lieu of dnating the land to a land trust, could the city pass an ordinance preserving the land in perpetuity? Do you think this would this comply with the credit intent? Thank you very much for the help.

Todd, it seems like this could pass muster, but since it's not strictly allowed under the credit language, and since I'm not aware of a lot precedent under this credit option, you may need 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 to get an official ruling. Or you could just submit the credit and back it up as strongly as possible, and see if it is approved.

Elke, this projet may not be eligible for LEED certification due to the requirements of MPR2. That MPR restricts LEED certification for projects on new land that haven't previously been developed. I woud recommend reading up on MPR2 and posting your thoughts and questions to that forum.

Thanks Tristan for this important note. I did not understand MPR2 in that way, but I am really concerned now and will contact USGBC. I will post the answer in MPR2 forum.

Gaston, 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. is defined as the perimeter of the building plan. I interpret this to mean at grade, i.e. ground level.

What about a project with a Podium?

We have a project that has 1 level of retail and then 20 levels of speculative space. Everything is applying for LEED-CS (retail and speculative spaces).

The retail is at ground level and exceds the perimeter of the speculative space levels. How will 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. be calculated?

I would calculate the footprint based on the ground level.

Thank you April. It makes sense that the ground level will be 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..

But in case the level 2 is bigger than ground level, that's where I would superimpose the two shapes and get a final count. Would you agree?

Thanks

Yes, this does seem like the best approach, especially considering it from the plan view. Thank you.

E H, you understand correctly. Sometimes LEED is not internally consistent, or maybe the requirements represent conscious tradeoffs.

John, I don't believe that in LEED Online for this credit you actually have to document that the site was 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.". It's just something you select from a drop-down menu.

In my experience your site would be 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.". Furthermore, I would not consider a sod farm (mono-culture) as a natural area modified by agro-forestry-pastoral activities. Though, as you said, much of these definitions are up for interpretation and the only way to feel 100% confident is to submit a 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.. Also, you could submit in your preliminary review and see what they say.

Michelle, I have a situation similar to yours. When the owner of my project bought the property it was a working farm and almost all of the site was cleared and plowed fields, i.e.: bare dirt, when we started design. This was also a monoculture, with corn instead of sod.

Pursuing Case 1 and "limiting site disturbance" doesn't make any sense because there is no habitat there to preserve in the first place. Our intent is to restore over 50% of the site area to a native prairie state and pursue the credit under Case 2. I agree that this doesn't seem to meet LEED's current definition of 'undeveloped land' - but turning a monocrop into a prairie should meet the intent of the credit. Right?

As an aside, the Addendum language completely supersedes the definition in the Reference Guide. Ignore the "...graded or altered..." definition in the Guide because it's no longer valid.

Hi Joseph,
This one is definitely confusing and interestingly enough I got a response from the USGBC on this definition that I have never seen before:

"It appears that there is a discrepancy between the latest 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." site in the Glossary of the Reference Guide Addenda (see page 53 of this document: https://new.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/DocumentAddendaRG%20BD+C%2010....) and the definition in the footnote to SSc5.1 of the LEED-NC v2009 Rating System, even in the latest version of the Rating System document (https://new.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/LEED%202009%20Rating_NC-GLOBAL...).

We appreciate you pointing out this oversight, and apologize for the confusion. I have escalated the discrepancy, and hope it will be clarified in the next round of rating system updates.

In the meantime, you are free to utilize either definition, as they are both published as applicable. Please note that we recommend using the revised definition from the Reference Guide Addenda (highlighted in the previous response below), as that is the most recent and accurate of the two definitions."

Sounds like you've got your scenario covered. Thanks for sharing your situation.

I have been off of this string for a while. It turns out our site in Thailand in decades past was a rubber tree plantation which has overgrown and then partially developed for resort projects and small housing on parts of it. Would pictures of human activity (culverts, water tank foundations) provide sufficient proof if a question of the site's history comes up? Or does LEED take this on the honor system?

John,

I’ll attempt to answer your question by first, not answering your question. In my experience, it is completely up to the project team to determine whether or not a site is a greenfield. Teams often try to determine which option makes the most sense, which usually means which option is the easiest to achieve, which is also quite unfortunate. I would start by trying to determine which option makes the most ecological sense. If a monocrop of rubber trees was replaced by a monocrop of a different sort, there is little ecological value if the site was protected as a greenfield. If however, considerable wildlife and biological diversity has popped up in the decades since the rubber tree plantation days, maybe it does. Keep in mind that this determination between 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 greenfields has implication on other credits as well. Please consider not what option is easier but which makes the most ecological sense.

With that said, I’ve never been questioned on this topic and have even been encouraged to switch from one to the other by a review team in order to meet the requirements of the credit. So, if you were to ask me, I would say it is entirely based on the honor system, so long as it is consistently defined in other credits throughout the rating system AND there is some logic to whatever conclusion the team comes to.

As long as your construction access and temporary parking does not go outside of your site disturbance parameters, you could document compliance. That said you cannot disturb the greenfield beyond the site disturbance parameters for construction purposes or otherwise. Remember the LEED boundary should include all site disturbance including construction lay down, etc even if only for the purposes of construction. Another thought to consider is that in the November 2010 Addenda, an average calculation is allowed as long as 3 of the 4 parameters are met - it states, verbatim, "There are no calculations required for this credit, unless a project cannot limit site disturbance for every parameter. In such a case, an average is acceptable, as long as 3 of the 4 disturbance limits are met. Project teams should calculate the amount of site disturbance allowed under the requirements for greenfield sites and then the amount of actual site disturbance. The actual should be less than the allowable."

Can you describe a little bit more what you have in mind?

Based on what you've said so far, my response would be that the area has to be native or 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.. If a certain area is to count toward that requirement, it wouldn't make sense for it to be half turf grass, etc.

I have a similar instance where we are using native tree species planted in turfgrass area. Can you count the 5 year canopy SF of trees towards this credit being native/adapted and creating habitat?

Hi Peter,

Whenever I do my calcs for this credit I calculate the area of the 5-year canopy, regardless of what it is planted in / surrounded by.

This has never caused an issue for me or my team. Hope this helps.

Thanks for the comments. I have additional information on the plant mix: The project is using a “Mid-Atlantic Blend” on the green roof (and we are planning to include the green roof areaRoof area is the area of the uppermost surface of the building which covers enclosed Gross Floor Area, as measured when projected onto a flat, horizontal surface (i.e. as seen in Roof Plan view). ‘Roofs’, or portions of roofs, covering unenclosed areas (e.g. roofs over porches and open covered parking structures) are not included in the areas used to evaluate compliance with SSc7.2, though they may be applicable to SSc7.1. in our LEED calculations). The plants selected are adaptive but using natives for the 4” green roof profile is very difficult.

Basically, if the plants are adaptive but not all are native, can we still count the green roof area?

There are a couple of LEED Interpretations that are applicable here. One says that only intensive roof systems (growing medium of 6 inches or more) may be counted, which given your comment saying that the roof profile is 4 inches, may be an issue. The adaptive plants may be counted, but only if they provide habitat value and don't essentially result in a monoculture of similar species. The project team might consider pursuing SSc5.2 if the project is in an urban area, in which case the extensive roof approach may be used.

See the interpretations for more info:
#10231
#1898

Narada,

You must plant with native or adapted species, but if you do that I think the gardens could count.

Has anyone attempted this approach?

Hi Carl,
I would not count on there being flexibility with the required square footage to meet the credit requirements, especially because it's more than just a few percent less than the required amount.

Good luck!
Devon

Devon
Thanks for the comment. You probably are correct yet there always is that ever apparent "but". LEEDs intention as part of its mandate is to maximize all areas for sustainability. When that becomes very close to being accomplished on a very tight infill I find it somewhat suspect if they become more rule driven without the use of "common sense" when the point(s) in question can lose its value because of code restrictions and municipal by-laws
Carl

Felipe,

These areas can be counted as restored area, as they help maintain the native plantings and meet the credit intent. The reference guide states that "other ecologically appropriate areas are natural elements beyond vegetation that maintain or restore the ecological integrity of the site. These may include water bodies, exposed rock, bare ground, or other features that that are part of the natural landscape and provide habitat value."

Hi KC,
I suggest evaluating this approach using information from the Reference Guide, both the credit Intent and this information from the Implementation and O&M sections: "Research the bird and insect species that are likely to use the roof and select plants that will provide food, forage, or nesting areas. Vegetated roofs that lack a diversity of habitat-providing species types and plant sizes do not meet the intent of the credit....Avoid plantings that will harbor pest populations near the building shellThe exterior walls, roof, and lowest floor of a building, which serve to separate and protect the interior from the elements (precipitation, sunlight, wind, temperature variations).." The troughs may be accepted if you explain to the reviewer how the troughs achieve these goals. Additionally, 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. 1511 states that when including a green roof in the calculations for this credit, the requirement is 20% of the TOTAL site area (including 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.). I expect this requirement would also apply to the troughs. Consider submitting a project-specific 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.

It sounds like your project is really Option 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.". In that case, you have to set aside a certain percentage of the site. If you can meet the demands of Option2 then you should be able to earn the credit.

I regret for the confusion. Actually the existing facilities do not belong to the owner. My question is that since this new construction facility is already surrounded by other existing facilities, during construction all site disturbances are limited within the plot. As per the LEED requirement, the site disturbance must be limited to 40 feet on all sides of the buliding. The project doesnot have enough spaces like 40 feet of the building. Hence, its obvious that the contractor have to limit the site disturbance within the plot limit which is less than LEED allowable 40 feet distance around the building. Doesnot that mean the building qualifies for the credit? Same condition is also with surface walkways, surface parking and roadways within the plot.

If you were a greenfield site, it would. But given what sounds like a tight urban site, you have 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." project site which means you are forced into Option 2. The limits of disturbance only apply to those project sites that are greenfields.

I've documented this credit as the architect and have also had a civil engineer do the documentation. You may need to do the full documentation path.

Ray, Case 2 is not available as an option if you don't comply with the Case 1 requirements. If you fall under Case 1 and don't meet the requirements, this credit is not an option. That is, if I'm understanding your question properly...

Marcio, I don't see any reason that they would be categorically excluded. You would have to make the argument that they are providing habitat, though.

Jen, if the canopy is over 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., then you cannot count it. Tree canopy over asphalt, for example, does not add up to habitat.

What ecological function does the crushed coral provide? I am doubtful that you could count it.

I have a similar situation to the one Jen has...I assume from your reply that you can count canopy over turfgrass, Tristan? Also, would it be the same requirement as SS 7.1 shade provided after 5 yrs?

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.

Omer, Is your project achieving SSc2? If so, I would think you could count the landscaping above the parking garage area to the calculations but I would check with GBCI on this.