LEED 2009 - What's missing?

I have just recently had my first opportunity to review the entire updated 2009 edition of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), and honestly, it's the most in depth look I've really ever taken at what is considered by most to be the current standard in sustainable design. Being new to the field, I don't have a strong frame of reference to compare it with previous versions but perhaps that is something to take advantage of - the Japanese call it shoshin, beginner's mind - the ability to see things as if for the first time, every time. I'll go with that approach. Just a few observations and opportunities I'd like to remark on...

Since this was the first time I was going to take a deep dive into the guidelines, I'd like to reflect upon them with my own background and interests to see what kind of suggestions I thought might be helpful in augmenting them to include measures for health, safety, security and disaster mitigation in the same context. Several sections stood as obvious places to start:

Sustainable Sites - Section 1: Site Selection states that "previously undeveloped land whose elevation is lower than 5 feet above the elevation of the 100-year flood as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)". This is certainly an excellent suggestion to make from the perspective of avoidance of flooding, a common disaster in some areas of the country and one which most insurance policies will not cover. One suggestion I might make is to consider expanding the standard to increase the minimum to 10 feet above flood stage or too limit rebuilding on land that has flooded to the specific level more than once within the 100 years. My concern here is that the 100 year flood might actually become more common with emerging effects on weather from the impact of climate change. This could be similar to the standard FEMA has for rebuilding on ocean front property following hurricanes.

Sustainable Sites - Section 6.1: Storm water design - quantity, states that "the intent is to limit disruption of natural hydrology by reducing impervious cover, increasing on-site infiltration, reducing or eliminating pollution from stormwater runoff and eliminating contaminants. Design the project site to maintain natural stormwater flows by promoting infiltration. Specify vegetated roofs, pervious paving and other measures to minimize impervious surfaces. Reuse stormwater for non-potable uses such as landscape irrigation, toilet and urinal flushing, and custodial uses". These are certainly prudent guidelines to follow and I think the emphasis should be placed on limiting disruption of natural hydrology, versus building or expanding infrastructure such as storm sewers or retaining walls to limit storm water, which seems to be the standard practice in traditional construction projects.

Energy and Atmosphere - Sections 1: Onsite renewable energy and EA 6 Green power - "The intent is to encourage and recognize increasing levels of onsite renewable energy self-supply to reduce environmental and economic impacts associated with fossil fuel energy use." I would expand the standard beyond simply including net metering but feed-in tariffs (incentive structure to encourage the adoption of renewable energy through government legislation), as well. Also, an improvement would be to include emerging microgrid technologies, renewable district energy and recognition of the importance of having the ability to be independent of utility companies and an aging, unmaintained infrastructure.

Innovation in Design - My comments here are less specific and difficult to measure but in general I would like LEED to some how to recognize the user experience as a critical factor. What I mean is that, I think we would all agree that some people might be willing to spend a little extra to "go green" but probably are less likely to be inconvenienced or made to stand out if they wish to blend in. My fiance is very supportive when she hears my ideas but she insists she will not live in a steel and glass box. How can the aesthetic and user experience be considered and measured? I don't have an answer yet, I'm just throwing that one out there.

I also noticed that LEED minimum program requirements state that structures must be "designed for, constructed on, and operated on a permanent location on already existing land. No building or space that is designed to move at any point in its lifetime may pursue LEED certification". I am just wondering what Bucky would say about that? I am actually writing this post from my fifth wheel trailer. LEED for RV's anyone? Renewable, Reliable and Remarkable...