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?