Clarification on Greenfield vs. Previously Developed vs. Previously Disturbed Classification

Hello everyone,

I am seeking some clarification regarding the classification of previously developed land and greenfield areas, as I am having difficulty interpreting how these terms are applied consistently across credits.

Based on my understanding, site areas are often described using the following definitions:

1. Previously Developed:
   Land that has been altered for development in the past or present by paving, construction, or land uses that typically require regulatory approval. This includes graded, filled, or cleared land. Agricultural or forestry land and natural areas are generally not considered previously developed.
2. Previously Disturbed:
   Areas that have been graded, compacted, cleared, previously developed, or otherwise disturbed in any way. These areas do not qualify as “greenfield.”
3. Greenfield:
   Areas that have not been graded, compacted, cleared, or otherwise disturbed and that support (or could support) open space, habitat, or natural hydrology.

Based on these definitions, I initially understood that the entire site would be evaluated and conceptually divided into these three categories, and that the ratios of each area would then be calculated depending on the credit.
For example:

• Under LTc2 Sensitive Land Protection, the proportion of previously developed land would be used for compliance.
• Under SSc2 Site Development – Protect or Restore Habitat, 40% of the greenfield area would need to be preserved or restored.

Under this interpretation, an area that has only been cleared or graded in the past but remains unpaved soil today would fall under category (2) “previously disturbed,” and therefore would not clearly fall into either category (1) or (3).

However, I recently came across the following statement in the credit guidance:

“So within your project boundary, all areas must be categorized as either greenfield or previously developed, based on their condition at the beginning of the project.”

This statement has caused some confusion for me, as it seems to imply that there are only two final classification categories, rather than three.

Could anyone provide guidance on how previously disturbed but unpaved areas should be treated for LEED purposes? Specifically, should such areas be classified as previously developed land in the final accounting, or are they treated differently?

Additionally, I would appreciate clarification on the SSc2 Protect or Restore Habitat requirement:
When the credit refers to preserving or restoring 40% of the greenfield area, does this mean:

• preserving/restoring existing greenfield areas in place, or
• achieving a total restored habitat area equivalent to at least 40% of the greenfield area, regardless of where the restoration occurs on site?

Thank you very much for your time and any insights you may be able to share.