Hi, the project of ours has a site with current agricultural use, there is only 1-2% of the site with native vegetation. In this case, can we use Option 2 - previously developed or graded? I could not find a definition for graded sites. Does anyone have a recent experience, how USGBC evaluates sites where no previous construction has occured but because of agricultural use, there is no native vegetation or wildlife to be saved? Thanks!
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
519 thumbs up
September 9, 2014 - 11:22 am
Hi Monika,
I have had experience with this situation. The current definition presents a problem for this kind of site. You are technically not previously developed per the definition. However, the lack of anything worth saving makes that distinction kind of spurious. If you are determined to get the point, you can pursue construction limits despite the lack of vegetation. The limits themselves are the compliance rather than any specific amount of native vegetation saved, but the effort isn't generally worth it.
If you are actually able to restore better than 50% of your LEED boundary area with native vegetation either on the site or somewhere dedicated, you might be able to make an argument. I was successful one time with a project that was previously a sod farm, had no native vegetation to speak of, but was providing a sizable buffer zone of restored vegetation between the site and a river. I am aware of one other individual who also had a similar project and I believe was also successful making this argument. BUT you must be restoring significant native vegetation to have any shot at this. Good luck.
Mónika Egyed
ABUD Ltd1 thumbs up
September 10, 2014 - 2:24 am
Thank you, Michelle!
Daniel Hartsig
14 thumbs up
October 1, 2014 - 3:42 pm
Monika -
We deal with this issue regularly: LEED v2009 defines previously developed as graded or otherwise altered by human activities. In LEED v4 the definition changes to exclude agricultural sites.
If you're still using v2009, farms and some variations of grazing areas would count as altered due to the types of clearing and planting activities. Derelict sites become questionable depending on how much they're overgrown.
Sites with a mix of types use both sets of guidance, for each area.
I hope that helps,