Monoculture cropland is not green space. Biodiversity is actively squashed.
The intent of this credit is to: "to conserve existing natural areas and restore damaged areas to provide habitat and promote biodiversity."
In version 2009, ID #100001768 (2013/04/01) clarified that the the definition of greenfield included agricultural land.
Does this apply to v4?
I take serious issue with the benefit of preserving and protecting agricultural land from construction activity. 93% of Iowa land has been converted to agricultural uses - mostly monoculture corn and beans. On this project, we are taking land out of agricultural production and restoring actual habitat.
Because of the wording of v4, it looks like we can't get this point because we can't leave 40% undisturbed - even though we plan on planting native and adapted species on 45% of the site.
Has anyone else come up against this, or do I need to submit a CIR?
Stewart Whitcomb
Sr. Sustinability ArchitectUSGBC-in Volunteer (L.f.G)
5 thumbs up
July 10, 2017 - 5:51 pm
Hi Martha,
The book states that the greenfiled areas have not been previously developed, graded, or disturbed. I would definitely count agricultural land as graded and disturbed. I'm not sure that interpretation states that greenfield include agricultural land, it just says undisturbed land that COULD support open space/habitat/ or agricultural. Are reading that differently?
-Hannah (signed in as Stewart)
Mary Frances Stotler
1 thumbs up
June 1, 2020 - 12:38 pm
Hello Martha,
We are facing similar challanges and we were curious what the outcome of this discussion came to? We also have agricultural land, and it seems unpractical to bring the soil conditions to match conditions that were in place prior to being a farm. Thank you in advance.
Martha Norbeck
PresidentC-Wise Design and Consulting
71 thumbs up
June 1, 2020 - 1:50 pm
Mary, The assertion that monoculture farmland is not a greenfield was accepted by the reviewers without question. I did provide a paragraph stating something to the effect of farmland is disturbed land not intended to provide habitat.
Maureen Drullard
Mason & Hanger1 thumbs up
September 26, 2022 - 3:30 pm
Hello Martha. I am curious how you handled the requirement for "soils (imported and in situ) must be reused for functions comparable to their original function" in this case? We are doing something similar, in Iowa in fact, where we are developing what is currently a field farmed for corn. The soils won't be used for agriculture after our project, and some will be used at the foundations of new buildings. This clearly doesn't reuse existing soil for comparable function. Any experience related to this you might share would be appreciated!