Hi,
My project recently received the commets:
"It appears that the area of tree canopy has been included as compliant in the credit calculations. According to
LEED Interpretation 2324, while tree canopies allow for a limited amount of species to return and live, the habitat
value of vegetation at ground level, if any, must be taken into account as well. Note that the documentation provided
appears to indicate that turf grass accounts for the area at the base of the trees, which prevents the areas
surrounding the trees from being truly restored to a natural condition. As indicated in the Implementation section of
SSc5 in the LEED-EB O+M v2009 Reference Guide, monoculture plantings (e.g., turf) cannot contribute to the credit
requirements even if they meet the definition of native or adapted. Revise the credit calculations such that any tree
canopies that cover monoculture plantings are treated as non-compliant. In general, only the area of the vegetation
at ground level should be included in the credit calculations."
For my project, the shrubs and turf are mixed planted.
I am confused that how to calculate the trees' ground level area. Is the area of planting pool?
Also for mixed planting,almost all the canopies covered the turf, is it reasonable to exclude the canopies that cover monoculture plantings?
If the turf area is excluded, then the shrubs planted with the turif are also excluded. Am I correct?
This credit is so confusing.
Trista Brown
Project DirectorWSP USA
456 thumbs up
November 20, 2017 - 7:23 pm
It might help to consider the vegetation at the ground level only (so ignore the tree canopies). Generally that's how the square footages should be determined for this credit.
If you have areas that are turf only, those areas must be counted as non-compliant. If you have areas with turf + trees, those areas must be counted as non-compliant. If you have mixed plantings that are native/adapted (turf + shrubs + trees), that area is counted as compliant. That said, if GBCI sees that your mixed planting area is predominately turf with a couple shrubs in it, they may make the call of saying it's mostly monoculture and therefore doesn't provide habitat value. I'd recommend providing photos to help support your claims if possible.
Hope this helps!
Martha Norbeck
PresidentC-Wise Design and Consulting
71 thumbs up
April 23, 2024 - 12:31 pm
I am sitting in a neighborhood with a robust tree canopy. The crab apples and red buds are teeming with blooms. The oaks are dropping catkins in clumps. For the most part, all these trees are surrounded by turf grass. People are posting about no-mow May to save the dandelions for the bees, while I'm looking at a chery tree in full-bloom surrounded by busy insects. I have read this thread before and continue to shake my head at the suggestion that trees are not worthy of being considered part of the habitat if surrounded by turf grass.
This strikes me as an example of "perfect being the enemy of the good." Can anyone say if the TAG come around on this point?