Has anybody ever looked into trying to get landscaping plantings (grass, trees, schrubs) to be accepted as a compliant bio-based material?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
February 17, 2020 - 5:45 am
It has been looked into and discussed... though no definitive answers on this thread: https://leeduser.buildinggreen.com/forum/green-roof-and-landscaping
Can't think of any other threads and nothing came up via search for "planting" and "landscape" in v2009 forum.
My subjective sense is that these "materials" are covered via the site credits and don't fit here, but if you can slot them into a CSI section that's included, maybe...
Credit language refers to "harvested" and "materials"... not exactly terms you'd use for live plants.
Renee Shirey
Stantec422 thumbs up
February 18, 2020 - 9:47 am
Thanks for the feedback Tristan. I have claimed landscaping plantings (Div 32.90) for Regional credit in v2009 before, without issue. Since the only way regional credit can be claimed in v4 is with another sustainable characteristic, I wondered if bio-based would apply. I may try it, just to see - but I definitely won't depend on it!
Joanna Switzer
Sustainability Project ManagerAtkins
59 thumbs up
April 14, 2020 - 11:42 am
Hi Renee,
Curious if you were successful claiming landscape plants as biobased under LEEDv4. I had also successfully used the Regional material approach you mentioned for LEEDv3 (& LEEDv2) projects.
I noticed the latest LEEDv4.1 BPDO calculator (ver 01, rev. 01) Material tab CSI division list now includes a pull-down menu to guide Project teams on the "typical" permanently installed Project material categories. It follows the same general LEEDv3 MR calculation rationale, including CSI "31.60 Foundations", "32.10 Bases/Ballasts" (which also includes surface paving materials) AS WELL AS "32.90 Planting".
To me, it seems a handicap to require (or otherwise advise/strongly encourage?) Project teams to include 32.90 in the total Project material costs without any viable performance contribution option for them - a particular handicap for projects with a sizable landscape budget.....thus, hoping biobased would be an option since regionally grown landscape plants alone will not qualify under LEEDv4.
Renee Shirey
Stantec422 thumbs up
April 14, 2020 - 12:09 pm
Joanne, I couldn't find info on LEED bio-based requirements that ultimately made me think claims of bio-based were possible, at least not for our landscaping. So, I let it go because it didn't seem worth the hastle of trying to get the growers of the landscaping to produce supporting documentation when I didn't know what would work anyway.
I agree that it hurts a project that has substantial landscaping, because besides bio-based characteristics what else could be claimed for planting? And realistically, how possible is it to find a nursery that has that type of documentation? Are there any??? Unless they remove 32.90 as a CSI section to be included inthe material budget, it only hurts the possible compliance rate for Sourcing of Raw Materials.
Deborah Lucking
Director of SustainabilityFentress Architects
LEEDuser Expert
258 thumbs up
April 14, 2020 - 2:52 pm
Sustainable Sites contains a Credit that accounts for "bio-mass" - i.e., vegetation.
Here's the definition for biobased, from the EPA: Biobased materials refer to products that mainly consist of a substance (or substances) derived from living matter (biomass) and either occur naturally or are synthesized, or it may refer to products made by processes that use biomass. (https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NRMRL&dirEntryId=231873)
So I would conclude that plants are NOT considered biobased material.
Hope this helps.
Renee Shirey
Stantec422 thumbs up
April 14, 2020 - 3:10 pm
Thanks for your insight Deborah. For me, it strengthens the argument of eliminating 32.90 materials in the LEED materials budget since there is no way to earn any "credit" for those materials.
Deborah Lucking
Director of SustainabilityFentress Architects
LEEDuser Expert
258 thumbs up
April 14, 2020 - 3:37 pm
Renee,
We've achieved Regional Material points (under v2009) for landscaping plants and that is still possible for NC-v4 MRc3. Takes work, and may not be worthwhile unless the project has extensive landscaping.
Mikhail Davis
Director of Global Market SustainabilityInterface
30 thumbs up
April 14, 2020 - 6:48 pm
Let's get back to the spirit and concept of the rule here. The concept for the bio-based Materials and Resources credit (now part of Leadership Extraction Practices in v4, newly achievable with an ASTM test for 50% credit in v4.1) is to replace a more damaging material (typically a non-renewable virgin metal, virgin plastic, virgin petrochemical, etc.) with a material that is renewal/grown and (hopefully) more sustainable. If the thing you are using is typically made from plants already, this credit should not apply. It wouldn't apply to structural wood (got to get FSC for this same credit) and certainly shouldn't apply to a material that is actually a living plant (unless the plant is replacing something else, I certainly hope we start growing buildings soon!).
Joanna Switzer
Sustainability Project ManagerAtkins
59 thumbs up
April 15, 2020 - 12:30 pm
Mikhail,
Not in disagreement with the credit intent - but then my counter-point would be that landscape material costs should not be part of the material analysis if irrelevant to the initiative - i.e.- there is no environmental benefit, or viable means to demonstrate improvement in those associated "materials."
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
April 15, 2020 - 12:44 pm
Joanna makes a good point.
Credit intent is always good to fall back on when there is ambiguity. However, if the LEED language allows it, and even encourages it due to CSI section policy, I'd say it's an open door until USGBC explicitly closes it.
To the point above about the definition of "biobased," I don't read that definition as black-and-white on this issue. Like many things biological, it seems more a matter of degrees.