Non-contiguous land to associate with LEED boundary

I think it woiuld be more in keeping with the MPR requirements (the land is being disturbed as part of your construction scope) to include that area. However, because the field is noncontiguous, I could see an argument for excluding it. Ulimately I think you'll need either to include it to be on the safe side, or get an official ruling from GBCI.

We have a project with a similar dilemma. Our building is a public/state project located on state forest land nearby other state owned buildings. The project boundary could be drawn logically to include all land impacted by the project scope/disturbance, EXCEPT that a tracking PV array will be placed 1000 ft away from our immediate site, in an open area between other existing buildings. This actually minimizes the disturbance so we don't have to cut down trees for sun access. Should we include or exclude the PV array platform and the narrow trench we dig to connect the power to our building? If we include the work as on-site, it will be contiguous, but a very long/narrow appendage of the site boundary. If we exclude this work - calling it off site, we propose to require the same construction limits for the site work done in hopes of getting SSc5.1 (I believe we need to minimize disturbance to 10' for the small utility trench and the PV platform). I also understand that the Renewable Energy would still be counted as "on-site" for EAc2 as long as the energy generated goes directly to our building. Does anyone have insights or follow-up on this issue?

I would include the PV and trench in the boundary, based on my reading of the MPR3 guidance above.