Hi everyone
I am struggling with the language of this credit. In particular the word "OR" in the credit title. We have achieved this credit on other projects. The language has changed considerably since 2009 but the description of changes does not indicate this change.
To keep this example simple, assume 10,000 sq ft site with a 6000 sq ft building area and parking lot. To build on this site, we will have 8,000 sq ft of mass grading and site preparation. When the project is complete, we will have 40% (4000 sq ft) of land set aside and protected. 2500 sq ft (25%) of this protected area will be restored with native vegetation.
In the past, this was an accepted approach. The land that was preserved and protected was not based on setting aside 40% prior to construction. The 40% protected area was set aside and restored after the project was complete. Further, we have always utilized overlapping land for the protected and restored area. To plant a portion of protected area with native vegetation, would require the protected area to be disturbed.
Previous credit interpretations from LEED user do not appear to support this interpretation. I read the other interpretations for a similar 10,000 sq ft site to have 4,000 sq ft of the site set aside and never touched. The allowable area on this site, including mass grading would be 6,000 sq ft. 25% (2500 sq ft) of the disturbed area on site would be restored, leaving 3,500 sq ft of the site to be developed with building and parking. This is very restrictive to set aside 65% of the site total.
LEED user also states: Any building can earn this credit
This credit can be earned by any building, even those that don’t have large amounts of vegetation onsite. Projects that do have sufficient vegetation onsite can earn two points, while projects that pursue the financial support option max out at one point.
The reference manual says protect 40% and option 1: restore the site or Option 2: provide financial support. The protection of 40% of the site is not an option - it is required. If you are on a small site, this credit may not be achievable and meet the program requirements.
Thank you in advance for your review. I appreciate the insight as we move forward in developing our LEED scorecard for this project.
Craig Graber
AssociateAtelier Ten
22 thumbs up
September 30, 2020 - 1:12 am
Jumping in here because it appears no one has answered your question. Maybe the credit title should be "Protect and/or Restore." Protection refers to the greenfield area. Restoration applies to the previously developed area. If your site has both conditions then both apply to your project, but if your site has no greenfield then the first part of the requirements (protect 40%) does not apply. It is required only IF you have greenfield area on your site.
Zeynep Cakir
LEED AP BD+C, WELL AP, Sustainable Building ConsultantECOBUILD
10 thumbs up
January 5, 2021 - 4:04 am
Dear Craig,
What if we have 100% greenfield site? The credit language has an 'AND' here that's confusing our mind: 'Preserve and protect from all development and construction activity 40% of the greenfield area on the site (if such areas exist). AND Restore a portion of the site (including the building footprint) identified as previously disturbed and follow vegetation and soil requirements below.'
Previously, 100% greenfield sites were only able to qualify thru Option 2: Financial Support. In this revised language we cannot figure out the path for 100% greenfield sites. Not having any previously disturbed area disqualify the project for this credit?
Dionisio Franca
DirectorWoonerf Inc.
30 thumbs up
January 7, 2021 - 9:56 pm
Hi Zeynep,
It would be good to ask this to USGBC to be sure, but it seems that your assertion is correct.
Zeynep Cakir
LEED AP BD+C, WELL AP, Sustainable Building ConsultantECOBUILD
10 thumbs up
January 27, 2021 - 2:34 am
Thanks Dionisio. Here is the answer I received from GBCI:
"When using this version of the LEED v4.1 credit, projects that have 100% greenfield area cannot earn this credit. The credit requires both protection of greenfield areas as well as restoration of developed areas. Since offsite restoration / financial support is no longer an option, the project would need to restore previously developed areas of the site in order to earn this credit."