NC v2.2 SSc5.1: Site Development—Protect or Restore Habitat

John, I"m not totally sure—I could see an argument either way. Ideally you would be able to take the conservative approach.

I don't think this would normally be approved. You would have to make a strong case that it should be considered equivalent, or at a fractional value of, regular open space. Since it doesn't seem functionally equivalent, I doubt this would be approved. Let us know how it goes if you do it.

Thanks Tristan!!!! I´ll let you know if so... :)

It sounds reasonable, as long as you're use this area as your LEED site boundary and use that same boundary for all the credits consistently. Thus, you'll also have to account for that area in your stormwater calculations for SSc6 and other credits such as SSc7 and 8.

Thank you for your reply. Those Greenfield areas are also part of project site boundary which I believe they are part of LEED site boundary. I guess as long as we are consistent with areas we are using for the calculation, we should be okay. I’m not sure by adding those areas would benefit us to get other credits, but I will certainly mention to our civil engineers.
Thank you,

My understanding is that if a site has a combination of greenfield and 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, than the site needs to be divided (for calculation purposes) according to their pre-development state.
In other words, greenfield areas need to be treated according to case 1, and previously developed areas need to be treated according to case 2, such that 50% of the PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED area (excluding bldg. footprint) needs to be protected or restored. Is that not accurate?

Design Alaska - That's an interesting question regarding how you define the combination 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." and greenfield areas of site. The interpretations for this credit I saw that seem partly relevant are #499, #1972, #1935, #1804, where there was some flexibility given in how the boundaries were defined, especially in #1972. Do you have any examples or guidance language that has contributed to your understanding of it?

My impression of Jin's scenario was that the greenfield areas were being left undisturbed, and the new construction was happening on the previously developed site. What's probably worth mentioning is that if the greenfield/ open space areaOpen space area is usually defined by local zoning requirements. If local zoning requirements do not clearly define open space, it is defined for the purposes of LEED calculations as the property area minus the development footprint; it must be vegetated and pervious, with exceptions only as noted in the credit requirements section. Only ground areas are calculated as open space. For projects located in urban areas that earn a Development Density and Community Connectivity credit, open space also includes nonvehicular, pedestrian-oriented hardscape spaces. gets included in the LEED site boundary, it would be the intent of LEED to see that space remain protected and undisturbed in the future.

I got that impression from the LEED BD&C (2009 version - different than v2.2, I know). Page 79: "For sites that contain both greenfield and 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, the project must comply with those site conditions' specific criteria. For example, if a 10-acre site contains 5 acres of greenfield and 5 acres of previously developed land, site disturbance must be limited in the greenfield area, and native and 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. must be protected or restored for at least 50% (excluding 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.) of the previously developed site area."

Design Alaska, I agree with your approach for complying with SSc5.1 and think this is the best way to deal with a site that has both greenfield and 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 within the project boundary.

I've not heard of any projects earning this credit under NC using the restoration of remote land - only EB O&M and AGMBC as you mention. This makes sense, given the intent and assumptions of different rating systems. With EB O&M you typically have less ability to protect or restore habitat working with an existing building than in NC where the design team has more ability to control the site plan, 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., structure and roof design. Under NC, the intent of this credit is to increase green spaces, habitat and ecosystem functions within urban and developed areas. You could always try 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 possibly submitting it as an ID credit, but I wouldn't consider it highly probable one to be accepted.

David,

Thank you for your reply. However, I didn't make it clear that this project is using AGMBC and is utilizing the campus apporach and a remote parcel of land for SS C5.2. I want to know if I can use this same parcel of land for SS5.1. I would think the logic would be the same and should still apply.

Sonrisa,
Thanks for clarifying that - the 2005 AGMBC wording is a bit vague on this question for 5.1, but your interpretation agrees with my understanding of it, especially given the last sentence of the credit guidance that says "For multiple buildings, consider aggregating any restored previously degraded parts of the the site as larger areas of habitat are more effective."
There are some past 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 rulings (#499, 1934, 1935, 2022) in the Interpretations database for this credit that appear to confirm this.

Devani, it sounds like a roof to me, since it's over conditioned space in the building.

Since it is at grade and has a native landscape, it seems like you could have a case for requesting 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, although I can't comment on your chances of succeeding with it.

Thank you Tristan for your response. As is it appears that obtaining this credit might not be possible with or without the greenroof in the calculations.

Patrick, I would assume that a good landscape architect, native plants expert, or forester (if it is wooded) could help with this. 30 acres is a lot of ground to cover, but I'm sure there are some patterns to the landscape, and that it can be analyzed in separate sections, with selected areas of typical sections "audited" by a plant expert.

Christopher, I have advised people in your situation that there is an issue with this approach. See a more extensive discussion on the NC 2009 version of this credit, which also links to a good EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. 2009 discussion.

I'd appreciate thoughts from others, and if you go down this path and 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 any other ruling, please keep us posted.

Hm, that's hard to say for sure. Is it justifiable to exclude some of the existing paving in that way? Does it go with another building, or is it really part of your project building?

If this is justified, and you recalculate all credits, I would think this would work, but I may want to communicate with your reviewer about it in case it raises any red flags for them.

I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed. Is there a reason you think they might not be?

We are concerned that the fact that the grasses need to be periodically mowed to be maintained may be of concern--fossil fuel consumption, pollution creation, etc. Although mowing is not required necessarily, the low-mow grass is typically specifed as a turf grass replacement, and will be mowed to create the given aesthetic affects similar to turf grass as groundcover. Do you see this as a problem?

I would look back at the intent of this credit—preserving habitat and protecting biodiversity.

In the area where I live, there are fields that require mowing once or twice a year to maintain then as fields—otherwise they will be encroached on by the forest. These are exceptionally diverse habitats, and the mowing (ideally taking place after nesting of certain ground-dwelling birds is complete) supports that.

If what's envisioned here is a more sterile, turf-like environment, I would not try to pursue this credit.

Benjamin, I am not sure I understand your question. The limits of construction disturbance are determined by just that, the limits of disturbance—not by a boundary line set by piping, swales, or something else. Does that make sense?

Lauren, I don't think so with this credit, since the intent is to promote biodiversity... it's a different environment than the rooftop, so to speak.

Are you trying to earn the credit under Option 1 or Option 2? Based on your question I assume you mean Option 1.

I don't think the activity you mention would qualify as "site disturbance" in terms of what's intended under Option 1. It's more about construction activity. As long as the "woodland improvement" isn't too heavy-handed and doesn't disturbe the habitat too much, I think you're fine.

I would note, however, that standing-dead trees, and piles of dead branches, and other things that may look unsightly, have value as wildlife habitat, so as a best practice I would, again, make sure the activity doesn't go overboard.

Do you mean 15 feet beyond primary roadway curbs? There is no 5-foot requirement for this credit that I know of. The requirement is "curbs," not grading, so it seems fairly clear that this situation will not meet the requirement. However, it might help if you clarified the distance question.

Hi,

I would like to ask the limitation of constructing a retention pond. What are the things that I need to consider regarding LEED expectation of a retention pond? Please advise. Thanks. Does 15' limit apply to this?

According to the credit language, stormwater detention facilities appear to be an allowed site disturbance—the credit rules restrict the disturbance you can cause beyond them.

Hi Tristan,

So, is there a specific disturbance limit beyond detention pond? Is there a reference that I could get about that rules?

Yes, it's right in the credit language. See above.