<%BANNER%>

Constructing a Successful Residential Green Rating Guideline

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101119_AAAAAK INGEST_TIME 2010-11-19T06:32:08Z PACKAGE UFE0014121_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 45869 DFID F20101119_AAAGHC ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH tilghman_m_Page_154.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
dd1431c4c6eac3245da1009870105ef3
SHA-1
4efc19fc19db1a6bfd63ff4d631f4ba2790972aa
126845 F20101119_AAAFXU tilghman_m_Page_208.jpg
5fb8538d74562db7536c87c59d185fe3
7f74af4fadb141664356bec773eefd1874c6930d
20965 F20101119_AAAENQ tilghman_m_Page_214.QC.jpg
29912334e01cb922d256d7e75eb0046a
3153cd1672fcd0367b09a86b43e1ef27163069e3
99678 F20101119_AAAFKJ tilghman_m_Page_041.jpg
1563cb71a7f65b403b9fb398ed957af8
a82a0585b61a11c20412564f6be395044399b1d7
50749 F20101119_AAAGHD tilghman_m_Page_155.pro
843c53f3e54d1a0421058e0a9c8dff06
1a72f28554a68f38f3bbe0d85f8ea5d04a951aae
67545 F20101119_AAAFXV tilghman_m_Page_215.jpg
8deb0014995521fd89f610984d56f714
0944bccbe570137f93b9763c52fff4f3c77ca298
32901 F20101119_AAAENR tilghman_m_Page_068.QC.jpg
60b4149672f71f4165544548c6671e33
f56177a5593977e60a7894a6af52eeafa97d05d3
3947 F20101119_AAAFKK tilghman_m_Page_189.txt
392c69ad33d9f26fe821dd5688743789
2b2b92667dc1b8a79a2fb0a41bb32ebfc674e1ff
29189 F20101119_AAAGHE tilghman_m_Page_162.pro
12c18e805cbd4551b6d63191a9a5eeb1
1565a2f2ca31c0c83eef581f37339c8f95f0d0fc
63412 F20101119_AAAFXW tilghman_m_Page_216.jpg
b7f00384b9e818abd0a8931c08deb502
11a2cd0d4b18423c4ce4cc312306a0fd74fce5e9
14528 F20101119_AAAENS tilghman_m_Page_184.pro
bbc252debfbe6579df1433ceaaeb024f
23e0e0cc229ac9cb6e5ba9c46e2243d1068b45b9
33830 F20101119_AAAFKL tilghman_m_Page_007.QC.jpg
771bf947f61bfa22d08fde731079c00d
d7ad4911506ffeb6d414b7501afcbfe67c90d98e
51048 F20101119_AAAGHF tilghman_m_Page_166.pro
6141d6fcaa9f1a79bc9707dc82089ddd
afbac1b1401dd1564122d693d55c9e35bbfa23fb
109848 F20101119_AAAFXX tilghman_m_Page_217.jpg
e1231ae428dc4ceb459e559537c16806
ab313d9c8c8581b01a0d3cfb6411bf2d752e7ff5
2111 F20101119_AAAENT tilghman_m_Page_074.txt
3712f613fb6937fc02e514ae65aaaacb
d82b62e4c13d9cc1e5cd04997f757542df3a319d
99198 F20101119_AAAFKM tilghman_m_Page_079.jp2
a979431748fbb7a61ee5fcc0811c9ad9
984819c0efd3daa22a96636732a2bcece430bb37
21146 F20101119_AAAGHG tilghman_m_Page_168.pro
3667d85bb71711256f6fae049dd5f203
07d10b05520385082ebeefe594ad7b2c2f9ab3dd
25486 F20101119_AAAFXY tilghman_m_Page_220.jpg
93b5fe0b90c3f80ffa6f67136fc55d8a
169beb3abdceded81a6d822c4d5df7cf901d92f9
33068 F20101119_AAAENU tilghman_m_Page_048.QC.jpg
7c1826a0b8438da86d055077af67a708
de069d805b1e82c21f88f4e296d5a30654b82a36
10648 F20101119_AAAFKN tilghman_m_Page_175.QC.jpg
d8eb2ec254df84a32e5d34d04c14bb8f
1e39607a3bdd3c237fdc0e177dcafb156fa3a386
49972 F20101119_AAAGHH tilghman_m_Page_169.pro
a101f95af5b4dfacf8f8854ffc09b1f7
3ea04c30c95b4e845ab6ab31928e74fd2e01d65d
85892 F20101119_AAAFXZ tilghman_m_Page_222.jpg
0d4c70e210e7f2c6ef66ae386d221991
bd6987d349edc755bab2b0ce1db8d98daafb8e48
1883 F20101119_AAAFKO tilghman_m_Page_053.txt
fef1eb0c642fcec090b3107c52bfd886
c1cf36f9cad3b310508e581cff3ba70dcc76e3a3
90904 F20101119_AAAGHI tilghman_m_Page_174.pro
e15d6ad277b4f2e8cf61105c74c979e5
a11bb9dc24ababf8480e34714ec4114794b53cac
1053954 F20101119_AAAENV tilghman_m_Page_201.tif
cc758b8d5793abcd29bec0366070b0ad
72472c4f025f8477a6f29cfe56fa3fb44c292fe8
29586 F20101119_AAAFKP tilghman_m_Page_132.QC.jpg
9d9ee0864acd438b1834ef2b76807ac1
f7cbb06564769158f3917d2c0fc4b1e27c9b0b44
16962 F20101119_AAAGHJ tilghman_m_Page_175.pro
12a4828104e9a9f1219747457bda0ee0
75455644604ffdbdd323397e4c88d91f7f4d0e6f
5799 F20101119_AAAENW tilghman_m_Page_016thm.jpg
198a91ca30fb108fe831a91ac6eb9c96
d13372d95a9dea21f259d3303b3f59ab3a1a5adc
F20101119_AAAFKQ tilghman_m_Page_062.tif
a0b6f4b2832f883d7be8ba7f34982ef6
c49568af626c39fcdce87c9a7ccf66228209c6aa
53886 F20101119_AAAGHK tilghman_m_Page_178.pro
d299238a7e6308c5357f39dbe776ece8
1039d97fdd69f3b5e48c22b4621a299ed89e133f
1277 F20101119_AAAENX tilghman_m_Page_003.pro
ae21024d0e2d6570821eab24243f7efe
9ff59cd20e82b58fc950f51d902881d1035072de
34360 F20101119_AAAGHL tilghman_m_Page_186.pro
5a4c3dbd3b88c60e4c77210419a76904
c1380246f063a04172e72c9ce3bb86077db67d70
F20101119_AAAENY tilghman_m_Page_147.tif
f2676b10287e2ada56117c86185d9c78
8a3c9e1209bf4c93438f0fd88d8a123ebae57b05
1241 F20101119_AAAFKR tilghman_m_Page_216.txt
528eaa9c2cd626649fb81469f098f72d
c5b0f14fe22f5e79bbf0d7a8cbbb15e1a7159d7b
14183 F20101119_AAAGHM tilghman_m_Page_188.pro
278c73cdebcd47ace85ec9cb9a7f1c86
d985b0c5da1ebb8b80421842e0d39d7430650c69
2013 F20101119_AAAENZ tilghman_m_Page_057.txt
564854730044b4364bb760e8ec62b899
fb6161d8476f23bce8510c33d18889aa2284c449
F20101119_AAAFKS tilghman_m_Page_188.tif
c79b382bf823ab4da62b9cbb65864ead
331f8b3dfac9ddb311d3b0d6a26ffd7a54bbb353
753 F20101119_AAAFKT tilghman_m_Page_013.txt
326b4c492de765a1c790f2fe084d2349
b7f79ef878819f2412a4127504f5453d073f128c
40506 F20101119_AAAGHN tilghman_m_Page_190.pro
07773f72b953b341d0a4cb942965a8ba
618b2cb391551e47c0763291b3bc7897f15421ec
2298 F20101119_AAAFKU tilghman_m_Page_009.txt
9d3bfda65f2279adbe6bebfcc6a589d2
970a64109121f86c6ad89caec9af506774c5800a
15471 F20101119_AAAGHO tilghman_m_Page_194.pro
86e9a2796e810cfb236fd9c7d73fc8a8
73726e5e18f67ebd6f9a1f309f3bc68f69eca6a4
54371 F20101119_AAAFKV tilghman_m_Page_059.pro
462a313cca8e3373e03694ff9e64f283
7852dab1f01def20b77be7be722e47f6839858a2
33226 F20101119_AAAGHP tilghman_m_Page_201.pro
b03b8419eadb71c97c173e634ff41702
0485def464216d6a0bc0ebda5a666b0676403bb2
25271604 F20101119_AAAFKW tilghman_m_Page_134.tif
e2ad66fed45387a66852cafb932c7907
ad2ec813d1c613edd8a845fd6563afcaa313cfa3
13787 F20101119_AAAGHQ tilghman_m_Page_203.pro
2c54ceeca74ad76b79f86baaf2242e09
dcca2fe5905f4c73aecda861f7c895c2269eb25e
F20101119_AAAFKX tilghman_m_Page_005.tif
2e1b7ff3c246da148e5f24d57288ee75
a54c47b306262710effbabc81e5cc16f5bd23283
57596 F20101119_AAAGHR tilghman_m_Page_204.pro
fc3d77075e4168b1180dd4620c7cb7c3
310666fb71d8462219a4e3fb54ae78d2160d2cda
90748 F20101119_AAAFKY tilghman_m_Page_076.jp2
9b3ef51b24a22f10751a4f7cc0cf2d1e
c8c4b3a857ed9ccc216ccdfaab541edb91271ada
75288 F20101119_AAAGHS tilghman_m_Page_205.pro
852add67f5e45da66ce2ccc291b4071a
0f99791fd5b4edb02bc3b52be9139ab36506b5f7
48387 F20101119_AAAFKZ tilghman_m_Page_199.pro
2f242fc289a14ed7ef3ddde808bc66ed
cb68786ea68f19f0f6056c6a833aedc4bf1952d9
80351 F20101119_AAAGHT tilghman_m_Page_206.pro
b9f702a705aef5defaaced86883b497f
0c83e7cbfc265b2506bd852ddbb4275f412017a4
24718 F20101119_AAAGHU tilghman_m_Page_207.pro
78a0dafa7d356079761911342a78d0b8
b1cb649729d54d634ac321cb51ea9b45c1572c6a
83381 F20101119_AAAETA tilghman_m_Page_134.jpg
1946224e754e51f4e04f952ffc63cfb5
98ad12e555465821394cb47c05af669721b7a3ef
38112 F20101119_AAAGHV tilghman_m_Page_212.pro
fdb7a8c70c4126d0f8f2f41c19d2803c
191f98f59bd2a7dfc6d9ea47d6285a3d3dcfdbd1
90123 F20101119_AAAETB tilghman_m_Page_213.jp2
90899dc5a6d4a7a0b829773446fbedc8
99ba598019e394a1fc01094f4810df93e4ea6c71
57776 F20101119_AAAGHW tilghman_m_Page_218.pro
f792fea52507b7396dc081e0291c5ac3
44e3ba9a45b784812191d07c19bed734502565e2
95892 F20101119_AAAETC tilghman_m_Page_166.jpg
69545a4e4c3fde1e5e809fa548c526fe
1637f71a690ca75e8889751e38f03409eaa70cef
11677 F20101119_AAAGHX tilghman_m_Page_220.pro
01db780b7b8de82e4a096a31117d8510
a586fad0ac29f3ec5f779ef415d06eeabb159a6f
804536 F20101119_AAAETD tilghman_m_Page_123.jp2
e73aa0403cf4102cf3fddc96402afca6
10aded8043bc08d454a02ad0d19d743805c3d9d2
91388 F20101119_AAAGHY tilghman_m_Page_222.pro
09adb8a2e98f70e6059da24c5da150d9
5216a13d6c949f41a32c4b5b01d0fcae78c61453
1740 F20101119_AAAETE tilghman_m_Page_136.txt
e15e9a3ad5b7252c01cfe80bdcf5771e
187427b1ac9fb76e3edec2dbba7dd6694c796708
30644 F20101119_AAAGHZ tilghman_m_Page_223.pro
7d23d24e76d6fe46db847616318f7165
a40004ec7e159b6a44bf1c1ba58baec46baa2717
1016 F20101119_AAAETF tilghman_m_Page_175.txt
5de752013aadf931515315906be2f7c5
068374d50cac1650dbe1021439c66f7959aaf519
42270 F20101119_AAAETG tilghman_m_Page_004.jpg
fb80d0cc3e09bb5187689f5d242abc77
e75a8363acf1d095afe1e70dc9aeb744707f56ad
78234 F20101119_AAAETH tilghman_m_Page_085.jpg
3348b46c697bfa09983de4aabfc1847b
f7b1642aab6a647073f346895eb6039079493c2c
3958 F20101119_AAAFQA tilghman_m_Page_180thm.jpg
e70c267f5d53d473bcc6557eaeb433a0
a29083cc2856f078c5cfde60c692e6264e12c3bf
33126 F20101119_AAAETI tilghman_m_Page_128.QC.jpg
06ac3afd5d37a5a6ad32012cf2d2a48c
5dbcb1574ff3da5ec79fa33e4031290ea7f9c191
8444 F20101119_AAAFQB tilghman_m_Page_030thm.jpg
b75597357f444244e0e6306a1e43e1ed
e5742c77edba0d5467bb8d4334504fbcbde03519
1445 F20101119_AAAETJ tilghman_m_Page_104.txt
87e19dcd1587bae43e9a717a6ef20ba0
4ca8c129e50a8d9135683e48267b887872fe954b
F20101119_AAAFQC tilghman_m_Page_096.tif
11468f655734c7ba1a52108107640254
ba24e6cde163f754dc8915836880ef036ab89988
1051986 F20101119_AAAETK tilghman_m_Page_015.jp2
f4c6f7e39e3ca6e107865e79163e706b
ac35ec2276aa7da9f96cb0f00d261653005a8204
136729 F20101119_AAAFQD tilghman_m_Page_179.jp2
e08930953a092b1e9eb2075c21e08537
70609941a1f69fdf4500929613c65b26a8a00c43
F20101119_AAAETL tilghman_m_Page_202.tif
a679faf4243247b7b569772c9d50f5bb
d81b0c169dd40aba7c6e1952d653da4328066a67
F20101119_AAAFQE tilghman_m_Page_003.tif
39e588d86a316acbc26bc37e3767fd73
4c2dd019f0889523acc6f4fd1a44838d408b2fe3
78961 F20101119_AAAETM tilghman_m_Page_012.pro
31ef4230f36e78422c66b210d8be7ab3
f988bd897f27781ee5a014a7c628782fed7be4d9
46715 F20101119_AAAFQF tilghman_m_Page_017.jp2
53f9f117028faa73faedbe0464cdbac3
3c17042a8048989201efcf6e6167b67dee4efe9a
F20101119_AAAETN tilghman_m_Page_067.tif
2b8a39725c8568a1f0383a9f4dc111b9
fb34addd9fb07853f38da2dcc27e64bac4f1d8b1
F20101119_AAAFQG tilghman_m_Page_103.tif
535c8d8517834310a2d576def6e4bb73
9dabdf12b63a2eba8d44e468f402e864d7b2df96
2009 F20101119_AAAETO tilghman_m_Page_138.txt
0ee1f35371f8598a4bc2b854e5f1ec5a
ff458dd369d7eabb768d4af49cc25ebaf6649eaf
47433 F20101119_AAAFQH tilghman_m_Page_158.pro
92293c63b8f97d175348d364d62b4d57
eff6691dfd4757edfc29b9952b4ca015a71d0c83
31727 F20101119_AAAGNA tilghman_m_Page_045.QC.jpg
027957583087a0f86e744d1b66d7ccbb
2d74fef336dce78de88f9f49503cdaa76d7f0216
49428 F20101119_AAAETP tilghman_m_Page_150.pro
dadbbc4ed2bde3f57138cfa8b3eec789
9d07e8d244b6b0d07e364b16bd8faa44cf394207
1054428 F20101119_AAAFQI tilghman_m_Page_222.tif
fb8bbb1175f191c6b59a7c3441bc0419
25b67c124aaace1320b3d73db3241cca9d2da8a1
33070 F20101119_AAAGNB tilghman_m_Page_046.QC.jpg
ae40e1c752afc4b88635c711047f47ff
37003308290dbd5600c977827f43bee5e60d2180
1869 F20101119_AAAETQ tilghman_m_Page_214.txt
327bc1f0d87296f4d0c1a80b172e563f
9a2b5711c4fd00ab3d4126cfba6b498b1506787c
F20101119_AAAFQJ tilghman_m_Page_055.tif
78c5b64d029086e4873a5fcd6989c762
4dd67c9bcac84e3f5c7db1608f12440df0ac29ed
34477 F20101119_AAAGNC tilghman_m_Page_047.QC.jpg
972e3257257b766cd45de63091f5e362
b6297ff55b791a92757e6e38e2d23f1dac22cf61
49793 F20101119_AAAETR tilghman_m_Page_044.pro
5756d021117856c10b7f14436046cacd
4129b376197697b9a2ef577cb47b83757c14ba61
39142 F20101119_AAAFQK tilghman_m_Page_202.QC.jpg
6d2bba415bf38a59d685e741afb17ef7
694261b788daeea61127ac2fa35c3ce66fb49791
8203 F20101119_AAAGND tilghman_m_Page_048thm.jpg
6f12ccd82c1657636fab12eb01092eb5
7b0e10d464395ce1bc2dbeab6277469fcd4298f4
8950 F20101119_AAAFDA tilghman_m_Page_112thm.jpg
f2f85f77e4c8987c205edf5f47d737ff
61e6bcfdc0c619f7438e6e549301bcc66d2c59f0
2709 F20101119_AAAETS tilghman_m_Page_111.txt
01b59dc486b203894b9ef48edf098a6e
f5c3b0f80de7848f3bb03498e2018a37c2c68db8
8278 F20101119_AAAFQL tilghman_m_Page_160thm.jpg
226a38a4a0ba293e7ebd869be5a9c04b
ab9877c7f7d6792bb3c2cc297989fb6a70667215
8559 F20101119_AAAGNE tilghman_m_Page_050thm.jpg
99eb783f851670b10a2ef09918b6e102
aa7bb211345449eb82c5a7850f70389018766a35
1476 F20101119_AAAFDB tilghman_m_Page_180.txt
5af7427b34e8992eb9ebc68b36ba8370
1a2ccddd2e3da5ce2506cb8d4a62ba99776f939f
F20101119_AAAETT tilghman_m_Page_097.tif
710c4a1e5433453070176439c0117be6
4304acca9c26e3f0c6a39c6510b3b4c3d3f5ab0b
112952 F20101119_AAAFQM tilghman_m_Page_030.jp2
3342d7184ebac7ee5a30831614a17cf3
dbab2bc6ef668dce0ba5c1e398a82e375993e695
33938 F20101119_AAAGNF tilghman_m_Page_051.QC.jpg
7395511da7649c0eccc297bdc497f1af
9298aca8f4c821d98e0bd49fb8405291d611d92b
94551 F20101119_AAAFDC tilghman_m_Page_020.jpg
a80a8c3f60d073c633150f1654621382
4ec790de3d351992c3b349222ca09cf9020814fb
75074 F20101119_AAAETU tilghman_m_Page_187.pro
61cc045dfa9f62c9d5207e19016d022b
77b867758cc688e5899b7b1d01e0130d1a5332b4
3897 F20101119_AAAFQN tilghman_m_Page_185.txt
96f65fa05bf8bf92a3e27f9cea7cc343
2f4e24117708fd81c39cfa30f574ceb49f40dd32
8687 F20101119_AAAGNG tilghman_m_Page_054thm.jpg
711b76ababb7d133b7c7ad88b0d58792
4a9dc1285cd6df57fabbee265782d982800e334d
3066 F20101119_AAAFDD tilghman_m_Page_156.pro
2c1a8ae95c0e7deffd023cf892eb5d25
55c8ebff7a69d079ed130354baf69c32eef07c94
29918 F20101119_AAAETV tilghman_m_Page_079.QC.jpg
56dd860cd10412caf42eca510012d99f
f3c8a675dfa79b95b19406618ed198ef332c0e02
9324 F20101119_AAAFQO tilghman_m_Page_011thm.jpg
458ac6c461efc5f598941f83ae48105c
9df7f631a8302e9b2789bce4cdde9ece27e20545
8553 F20101119_AAAGNH tilghman_m_Page_055thm.jpg
4be462393a691bb33ab3bb9ec7dbde0d
a0891282679f500eb334bdbfe186bc85ab0eed60
5032 F20101119_AAAFDE tilghman_m_Page_214thm.jpg
0483930bddb645a17c5fabe04748d9fb
bcb6258b33d7e9a4a086bfe3efd2fb7f9ba6e249
1509 F20101119_AAAETW tilghman_m_Page_223.txt
bb2833dd1ae144311396f8576d2ab699
cb920abd3f8ed2d1c549f7f94eb0f8e3cc0d26ba
106790 F20101119_AAAFQP tilghman_m_Page_049.jpg
6e269c2ac680b578ba85ebbb6047cbea
44d58b4110108c7a129db4dbc8e3a70d83d90f81
34129 F20101119_AAAGNI tilghman_m_Page_056.QC.jpg
9608d740554ceab42a910c6e76bd3868
41c7cea8395e499139bb8c7cc4b0e99dd4ea4e50
27021 F20101119_AAAFDF tilghman_m_Page_166.QC.jpg
9dfb9cc74e6927e3738333df9ccea571
493668d55e3f29c28ba45bb0f0eca760156ddabb
149752 F20101119_AAAETX tilghman_m_Page_007.jpg
d1a359a50018d2f383ac471cae305d30
0fd2649a431dbb2b59909729f8a287daeb96644c
7572 F20101119_AAAFQQ tilghman_m_Page_154thm.jpg
ef2bc6e0c579e79930229ca88f78d947
6266cbae8b0ae5b20c0b1a9f548e75eb9a99f555
8069 F20101119_AAAGNJ tilghman_m_Page_057thm.jpg
4684a156d28e057cbfc8897e8d903084
74cf20332c0da29dd1e34b148cf6c5b2a65885e2
F20101119_AAAFDG tilghman_m_Page_207.tif
db3ae526c120e3485f05292073539747
dc739abc6aada8773711a4767964eaae5f3ae068
1920 F20101119_AAAETY tilghman_m_Page_081.txt
bcc9cb2d2a38230104dbbf71e6fd895a
b0d742106f7234c963d624a3b9c4f5d2765bdf0a
8058 F20101119_AAAFQR tilghman_m_Page_110thm.jpg
7cc6e37a8b703f5c93bc8ef194a909f3
a0b7696494e749e6ec139c68f6816ca12e21daac
8551 F20101119_AAAGNK tilghman_m_Page_058thm.jpg
c9e8d963db081525bb57d43ceb6b9397
22eefef91d6c12de32139578705d0ee65da880d6
57320 F20101119_AAAFDH tilghman_m_Page_190.jp2
324b473a1aa28e933cfac774c6398255
84a46333364d2c10acb956babf76c12562d844d1
F20101119_AAAETZ tilghman_m_Page_110.tif
61a65977eb5c458a9e0817a08657110d
58ba4b0df804d2da53b73a4b21f01f8bab99659a
108496 F20101119_AAAGAA tilghman_m_Page_142.jp2
2ffb76c587531db9923290e57a79550e
f3bedd520a5aea757fd3a450b29fe4fb01a26270
1796 F20101119_AAAFQS tilghman_m_Page_023.txt
329a060f4914520eda61ad19c5d843e6
dd95a23552e91676aeb94f625116b960a6edb226
8210 F20101119_AAAGNL tilghman_m_Page_059thm.jpg
81b611fcfb77e842afca9a8fca5781a1
9a90da61f1187beb7842fa29f3229990c95f4646
92059 F20101119_AAAFDI tilghman_m_Page_079.jpg
83df6a5d2d403506124e03972f0dd0c8
f72d617acd810b09aea31f294fda3176e4dabcfb
110036 F20101119_AAAGAB tilghman_m_Page_143.jp2
e1661a8f340feceeda322775e10d1972
cb8f9dd3ff7636a8c413ed2e8c61c00a3272e516
1828 F20101119_AAAFQT tilghman_m_Page_066.txt
7863a94709eb02b4e9ef0dece2a1b1fd
b868018281739f48300013a3b1aa7138aa5ba12c
33096 F20101119_AAAGNM tilghman_m_Page_059.QC.jpg
98932ab51d9535477c82a145a7881d05
5c1f5189de9c5fbe82faa067646f2b988b2c1b13
1051979 F20101119_AAAFDJ tilghman_m_Page_012.jp2
55b7dcc772acc481abbd81fe7ea3a424
54bf89fe04d9d0ca0bfa2dc09c35cb7e414a7b71
111080 F20101119_AAAGAC tilghman_m_Page_149.jp2
879195e4a6990bf589728425d752598b
32eff212bbd55d3e5a234a7602f06862204d9c31
F20101119_AAAFQU tilghman_m_Page_057.tif
b0662cd654db559d69dc1db8196c4d62
b063dfc171a3f629854cd4fde12630b888b83a5a
F20101119_AAAGNN tilghman_m_Page_061thm.jpg
2dd28cd2818449f7f0860aee91a4b6d9
dce314f57116faba1d61ce60774600057e205d94
106337 F20101119_AAAGAD tilghman_m_Page_150.jp2
b71a3446eec0600556dfae02440be8e8
cbb23186fa82e703bccb0925dcb8dd96be03960f
713870 F20101119_AAAFQV tilghman_m_Page_086.jp2
7c0ca66143a6f0c279fd5740497584a9
0a983f733beb6f6c2b812a66d1069f2181591fa2
6787 F20101119_AAAGNO tilghman_m_Page_062thm.jpg
83ab6987b01b942bd6fd217afc5cff52
633e8ba8ab9f0bb2c8ac170aa075e77d27b4436c
1953 F20101119_AAAFDK tilghman_m_Page_090.txt
f03f8984c34c46af2d8348aca729a7ef
de2bdb1fae37454b73b9e3a036b1f5b0925754b4
109897 F20101119_AAAGAE tilghman_m_Page_151.jp2
3272f92830e66ea8219c77119fe64d70
9276170cfe2a297e94f8c7efb6e524f251fe852b
2911 F20101119_AAAFQW tilghman_m_Page_077.txt
954a9ff34e3d01934aa7e338d5a75a75
d4e5487dd4daaf7b5b20072bde1d4af0b391d259
28515 F20101119_AAAGNP tilghman_m_Page_067.QC.jpg
f213d632a3105e4395bda92c9d738426
325f8c74e45c5928aa52cfd122374ce4d5f9628e
73507 F20101119_AAAFDL tilghman_m_Page_208.pro
31e3f9351ba50476658676238a455d09
12f3b545f9e51867ccb1f972499f0fcfdeb7fd45
100712 F20101119_AAAGAF tilghman_m_Page_152.jp2
54b44c8a0d929f723cc81ca5263ba06b
58799d87abab72dca0d556bd2b6b34efd4a8ffe2
8211 F20101119_AAAGNQ tilghman_m_Page_068thm.jpg
e856281dd265ee062aba25f67e2f70e0
3537a958aadc29773f17484fe8c06f38cc911973
F20101119_AAAFDM tilghman_m_Page_115.tif
51ed887e81fdeb321567524f14a93c5f
6be08f1bd62c8504960dec25579b3d8778d260b8
F20101119_AAAFQX tilghman_m_Page_212.tif
0d46e7d1e7eaaf01b2a2e5774d3e9344
b18aab5ad37db0f6c009fa62519d1adc5ac8e2cc
7668 F20101119_AAAGNR tilghman_m_Page_070thm.jpg
3abad1ad8c2412ccef1b6f4d8c5ee783
df85238659c60f75272c88f52839b57c65607b8d
5970 F20101119_AAAFDN tilghman_m_Page_135thm.jpg
d092d342f66ab0a5f0f09429b0d666bd
ca5e96ec98ab4cf30a639b65f745d2914c3f75d0
9851 F20101119_AAAGAG tilghman_m_Page_156.jp2
4d1a96262d5e99591544dc7a438d203b
bd059229a4e437f3c37a2ef6e520803a34a04bde
6834 F20101119_AAAFQY tilghman_m_Page_213thm.jpg
3f7a64885cdb5f27b775e5b321b4560d
c823ad51a6f41505cc4eec5ca29ef3f019d818e2
31548 F20101119_AAAGNS tilghman_m_Page_071.QC.jpg
2f107ce223af6997e25082bb09e64660
4591de0f6532ef12abeeabb7942f9b58da329791
23847 F20101119_AAAFDO tilghman_m_Page_139.QC.jpg
79b8f9ceaf6cf0cb82de036b84772ec8
f74660e904169ca2e2b702ad6c0a055fcf101d8a
99804 F20101119_AAAGAH tilghman_m_Page_157.jp2
528c1cd898c2155ee72f9aaf4ced58bd
c977e931113c0dfda7a1e9913117dddd17f8a9f0
49669 F20101119_AAAFQZ tilghman_m_Page_069.pro
90856e3133217e0b3b7b5bafcfb44cfd
55249f55d4d982a1aaa28089c314fb6ab2f1b9c9
33748 F20101119_AAAEZA tilghman_m_Page_057.QC.jpg
c829ef000760a12c819feb9d39b19afc
2ae70b82179e37584ba3370ebd42cbd1894cb4d6
51287 F20101119_AAAFDP tilghman_m_Page_050.pro
ffb066e250cfa19eb0c1ef9982c02ffc
9962d25e16284a52c26c2762b94bbb62b0865318
107979 F20101119_AAAGAI tilghman_m_Page_160.jp2
5d6e164dc8c3553c32e62d2f1a2f99b5
241292c2e96044884c5098acc17dd7feb2c2b6f4
8563 F20101119_AAAGNT tilghman_m_Page_072thm.jpg
5f42779c0c08c2f9da5114e871c0d5e8
702ce67f75a0722975433ed0c4f9f64d0e0f5e30
32591 F20101119_AAAFDQ tilghman_m_Page_218.QC.jpg
cdbbb4b033fe06ef822acdb644cd61b2
1ec0748b3f2d8432b3269d444331ea61f76dff0d
107855 F20101119_AAAGAJ tilghman_m_Page_161.jp2
b1229129ff84b40d207266aaaf8ab9fa
f34996f4570819fa6e81ac628347d7b74a765a53
33565 F20101119_AAAGNU tilghman_m_Page_072.QC.jpg
f7b05d1b7fe2e2bb58166a59ffc06869
d8517205b1aec799eebc304f967ac85164ca7af0
51560 F20101119_AAAEZB tilghman_m_Page_197.jp2
b8847867d59a37a79736359c82d5ceca
8c47818f80cc81ee443edcce63be0398f9cdcf61
38223 F20101119_AAAFDR tilghman_m_Page_125.QC.jpg
dd2d23e0803e0e5688ed48011d952c3c
d53f3fc365435452714dade1455976995f031476
1051982 F20101119_AAAGAK tilghman_m_Page_162.jp2
9290b7a391a0cf03ff9394390bc938e7
cd9c58ab48328389babc634d47beddf5c8547252
7935 F20101119_AAAGNV tilghman_m_Page_073thm.jpg
158fa4b820b47ead4f78e82e2d40b1aa
3626ecae061622391aaafbfae1f34e2a674b5227
F20101119_AAAEZC tilghman_m_Page_119.tif
6010d681f9dc5461d47d9d76dedd8c3d
afdf9de5ad960c9500f00f227d5de8880e1e5762
10344 F20101119_AAAFDS tilghman_m_Page_182.pro
c16ff1000cd97987ca4f26e76a6db2b1
a98263e260c808e6e36cae0305f8404d3a5f4ee6
19976 F20101119_AAAGAL tilghman_m_Page_165.jp2
2f4591a6c4468d7e59b9a0824167a514
d13a7674322777e0b909a9f92ed146b6175493ec
8506 F20101119_AAAGNW tilghman_m_Page_074thm.jpg
0cfaf595994ee270da8f7f063e58c0f7
8234e9bfec6682cd21630084bc708cc4f23c257d
733 F20101119_AAAEZD tilghman_m_Page_182.txt
f4ef7a8dfb3a227d2243853051091c29
61929c6279b02c26aa947c6a3135e4e2b629856b
1817 F20101119_AAAFDT tilghman_m_Page_173.txt
7f779f58e2aa4c6661493b3f2212694c
e80875a8cc48f57918651a67919b6d5fca5a7259
84522 F20101119_AAAGAM tilghman_m_Page_166.jp2
00c53cf302d8eb5855d797655dd6da7a
294916e3f3f1db86ed3f378d439a8ace154eead0
35672 F20101119_AAAGNX tilghman_m_Page_074.QC.jpg
4acebaca4e401cac19bb58f0d47aaa99
c27a11f08e9d6c8f9ed48a5844f5e387e98dd8ca
26213 F20101119_AAAEZE tilghman_m_Page_088.QC.jpg
b9a620c89a5abad4cd36a313c92d4930
e9885874ebb0645d87f67ca0002bb08cf0fa4148
56599 F20101119_AAAFDU tilghman_m_Page_068.pro
0b974b159451c0f21f916cb09f4cb291
48f3e85c079f0d19839612781146ed6c5183addf
36517 F20101119_AAAGAN tilghman_m_Page_168.jp2
ca5668f95b293a2d9d3f090ae535d099
5681f8bd139f760addb99b94fdeee6e4188ecda9
6844 F20101119_AAAGNY tilghman_m_Page_076thm.jpg
8f4b5fac26d2bf3864b88a815472b5da
d10f820c4c4c74d13af1987775a9dcf404e16e70
3321 F20101119_AAAEZF tilghman_m_Page_193.txt
e20d804424c68ef1fb0f7f5dd0dd8e0d
16062ea1101e313c2e6f968eefadb27ba2d9e1b7
F20101119_AAAFDV tilghman_m_Page_182.tif
98a8fb8f3a630d4f04091deb012b8ae8
31e8896e6208641f4c34b0e4e6ca4b89c88007bb
118906 F20101119_AAAGAO tilghman_m_Page_172.jp2
f17dbe148df20ac905661c5a14a0ba60
721ce3ec2f25209ec86f85a75066cf50a5f1103c
27635 F20101119_AAAGNZ tilghman_m_Page_076.QC.jpg
546e5ba05b6af46d1577f440c31655d3
256db9202ed6d38339613ea1ced4b18c9de79f40
34196 F20101119_AAAEZG tilghman_m_Page_146.QC.jpg
016b5d2018b86341b9db3b1d7de6c134
09db23d6719572990d421e9b055cd55f49418451
F20101119_AAAFDW tilghman_m_Page_113.tif
3874554ece199a9189d04c51688e718e
36893c076354f54d160a3d383694382265cf946e
47622 F20101119_AAAGAP tilghman_m_Page_173.jp2
874fe598ffef9cd7afa0c038cfe81d33
27abd54fdaabf46ff3103c4b48e887b9cd49c7ac
76525 F20101119_AAAEZH tilghman_m_Page_170.pro
9c9749a63e451bd34dfed19c4604a3a7
eeb63c102b910e1c1bdbe2e9f26a4085aa4eacb8
2260 F20101119_AAAFDX tilghman_m_Page_211.txt
89cd7b9aa43a1c61e5ebbe38e122a5dc
d0c81a6e43ebf462d085663f63f763f394b6f724
76142 F20101119_AAAFWA tilghman_m_Page_087.jpg
625c7708dfe2bfc7e8429a59aad28d37
94a8f86011a7f4f3adb200797d3ec495f3d2ff4d
142523 F20101119_AAAGAQ tilghman_m_Page_174.jp2
3647bc8dcd9d17ae6034c1b12d098d23
fc6281805b6e218085c40b989590bc8057f43cdb
F20101119_AAAEZI tilghman_m_Page_053thm.jpg
725f2c716667d2b323511c1e91141e50
cd6705a43a660d9bad474b4b68ea98841610bfcf
113420 F20101119_AAAFDY tilghman_m_Page_129.jp2
ac5f940b718557f1ab25d64143a94a10
33470fa2d0ee646a78b5b24b4a445c977ca694d3
80016 F20101119_AAAFWB tilghman_m_Page_088.jpg
c58c9b24d283135205125d317028883e
9805830fb103aca5ddc83e4556e99be6ef1ff710
126153 F20101119_AAAGAR tilghman_m_Page_176.jp2
67aba4522ad3091b28deea59badd28a3
86c6502f42f089be08c655737e3dbfb8b5e96fbe
F20101119_AAAEZJ tilghman_m_Page_159.tif
b76bb2672d8351eaf1326dad886b52ee
c99e2d2b4cfb7d4f2321b0c29707b86697be6536
50229 F20101119_AAAFDZ tilghman_m_Page_055.pro
c22e77740850ae1f56119f7253197e68
742f373b9c80c0b8563ca47b1e7651fc6fdaf375
103901 F20101119_AAAFWC tilghman_m_Page_089.jpg
304c0b3e8fc313154eaf2d86c5ce2d43
04594d8a51c54136cc195959cd34aeaf3067ebf4
20326 F20101119_AAAGAS tilghman_m_Page_182.jp2
98120ad07b31662a8bd44e5b2e0c5779
d504354616e6990a01eb5b6f2a24ca3a43e7d01e
29052 F20101119_AAAEZK tilghman_m_Page_216.pro
c92a70d81ad201f816489d4ba8ca88e7
1238151626eb05bdea9e7e8175fa02459e86a145
101164 F20101119_AAAFWD tilghman_m_Page_090.jpg
c67fb78f6fb36ce2b836d4700b099e25
3758f4618cc2e29052a51ed4a9aca8b1671a7b3f
26462 F20101119_AAAGAT tilghman_m_Page_184.jp2
6b6ef4f0df2dcbb8e11cdc477daaddde
f98e56135a43e03fa66baf0de6e960cc63d9010e
33293 F20101119_AAAEZL tilghman_m_Page_134.pro
60e7c25f9381602d7bb5ca639e335906
4bd641cedbe46ad96f16c2c614fada2487c66081
80597 F20101119_AAAFWE tilghman_m_Page_095.jpg
41094a6c1e38214abcf9eadeb24a2c23
2887a0bd39ced1968974d4f020491ded723a0372
137851 F20101119_AAAGAU tilghman_m_Page_185.jp2
518d2282029afd2838e7fd5dda5547bf
978c197c4b7641b3e7bd19f49d06eceb846df27e
17591 F20101119_AAAEMA tilghman_m_Page_075.jpg
8ff4137f5a40c2766522510b94206dd0
2e22b8d98d5ff656e4ab008f493c4d1f3629ab8e
32392 F20101119_AAAEZM tilghman_m_Page_127.QC.jpg
0f2acde967d8838a0e7da166e43a8660
04325855cca9f83fbd803a2c51053750795ac1f7
101700 F20101119_AAAFWF tilghman_m_Page_097.jpg
bc6f53067a20aebf2297082295d30ed9
54b8aea4005b02ddc0615fc088c7bec709dc262f
55520 F20101119_AAAGAV tilghman_m_Page_186.jp2
fffb9f33789c9cfc2dc016e53dc85a68
aa5136f78b51e609f092424deec83c3711c04885
99541 F20101119_AAAEMB tilghman_m_Page_092.jpg
eb08f8d006a1d1ecfc179621bf0594b9
5aa0134781349d84287f3a285f23f741efe5f70c
16135 F20101119_AAAEZN tilghman_m_Page_135.pro
e55043b6acfa5e18af004dcb550a6375
3776ea77bc5cab3488161bd898bb597489d6d697
124785 F20101119_AAAFWG tilghman_m_Page_098.jpg
7762ca8a7906a871d79a8cf243f48009
caf9ef8e09b1f2a7defd9e92b7f97853505e926a
109582 F20101119_AAAGAW tilghman_m_Page_187.jp2
b392ffd175531c6a0eccaae5aea95a6f
d9a64ba1cb184cd9b91f4d92426c78e93c9742dc
2837 F20101119_AAAEMC tilghman_m_Page_130.txt
ecf32070f5a924f25adb6f2976b06ba8
c0028cc9f668f450721383a5c1578f64b7af0f56
105441 F20101119_AAAEZO tilghman_m_Page_145.jpg
06371364551d2e75e770c1f26de3b99c
9ce4a44ea0a3b6ae6cb13b9353f3607a3a2bef95
129481 F20101119_AAAFWH tilghman_m_Page_099.jpg
42f7c8c4c1377047a544bc040e55bde5
093231746f36ea8053561028d35518e0c56e2bad
116647 F20101119_AAAGAX tilghman_m_Page_189.jp2
39fb9b18f1af38dcd9d652050a341cc9
590c24caa0b579ae874519700ddab57420032665
39103 F20101119_AAAGTA tilghman_m_Page_228.QC.jpg
f89e683447b270522079ab2aaf2a1e32
6263407996e0ba035a1659f389d6ba86855d092b
10117 F20101119_AAAEMD tilghman_m_Page_165.pro
ff9032fe4c9fdfea2c04fd44b64666c5
427d7da386fc7a58a1692a68f7b5b24639641eb0
107921 F20101119_AAAEZP tilghman_m_Page_041.jp2
1758e93363bae5feee3917554f9a1149
09b1d86d5eb88a38f5022245f54f422b26f8ade8
71528 F20101119_AAAFWI tilghman_m_Page_101.jpg
96f27310d833ca5a2bfb4877d329e659
5c8e06369fdbf4447d418cbb8ecf76a6277b3111
124329 F20101119_AAAGAY tilghman_m_Page_196.jp2
74036cd1ac9c76cbff0dfd2547cc6744
90c4d59edd1b3270fa61dad7ed2d68d1093324b9
9238 F20101119_AAAGTB tilghman_m_Page_229thm.jpg
d3dfd6af447f95125d72eea275e7a520
0e87b1cd969b135627ae1c58246bb60a91d7ef40
111455 F20101119_AAAEME tilghman_m_Page_025.jp2
500ef63662f66e6902b13e4f543fc4c0
9ec4d74addacffffcf3d29b3640caf10552aff9d
F20101119_AAAEZQ tilghman_m_Page_169.tif
e2efc6081622a12dadfac99224ff7b46
93c434f09bbf09bca8eb1ffb412ea7b2da2a5998
101942 F20101119_AAAFWJ tilghman_m_Page_103.jpg
2ba8a88e90725d03231c368c50296749
e77efd8e92add72e486839c10ffde36845f04041
77063 F20101119_AAAGAZ tilghman_m_Page_198.jp2
ab001c88952f869823ecf751fea4db07
37444ec3fad12b0da61b53ef48beb602c665313b
9254 F20101119_AAAGTC tilghman_m_Page_230thm.jpg
8593301a7b7fad3ee3c3b172e5b9d888
033384949244adb608935b7c7efb6de35b77882c
118012 F20101119_AAAEMF tilghman_m_Page_205.jp2
80fd2e0fb70593bff3fec72689ef9b35
be2c08cf9c38d120d2c6240dfc74ddd64a72862b
27139 F20101119_AAAEZR tilghman_m_Page_137.QC.jpg
3520147dee7e012f458d29aee10fe43d
11f7e3988be254b6a7e4954b20b7e185951ff86a
125199 F20101119_AAAFWK tilghman_m_Page_106.jpg
88a61a5af61d19448c4672589e521810
3e735c0c6ee334452871b6faa755a75f657de5c5
37788 F20101119_AAAGTD tilghman_m_Page_230.QC.jpg
cbb08dc13e8b51b8eae60529cc23f8e9
77452b9df6c634922684fe40c029406eb0e645bd
32037 F20101119_AAAEMG tilghman_m_Page_024.QC.jpg
3730d4e328da82cfd536203b790a726d
b246f66d5c06780780102fac4630d34a27e8a5a6
26417 F20101119_AAAEZS tilghman_m_Page_226.jp2
b3c762ae3570211f7cceca7e54deaed7
2254cdb7cb82b6669023f0b443775a6112fade5b
114624 F20101119_AAAFWL tilghman_m_Page_108.jpg
9820170b0a158ec12f522b58fa90543b
ca95f91a542c5017477cac06621d9252555b60f8
5443 F20101119_AAAGTE tilghman_m_Page_231.QC.jpg
104a4066f82d19eb3ce024f07b217424
8daecb93c1a2ca1948da1a1300c5385f1f7812a5
99210 F20101119_AAAEMH tilghman_m_Page_127.jpg
ceea651c8183574ff9305c9e299341c7
9051dfb108b15852f27d230b97039d829ddaa5d2
F20101119_AAAFJA tilghman_m_Page_074.tif
427ee5f8b389e2a60361d7bdc07bb7c7
3c7c03b5f0256412348c2091489f3a92524f5a47
33622 F20101119_AAAEZT tilghman_m_Page_147.QC.jpg
8c141635d81cbc5b0eff32f3bedecdae
320970eb3f5963dd8b41d7f2c3482fa59488b683
76519 F20101119_AAAFWM tilghman_m_Page_109.jpg
e7a4e589842b1dd501b636d4ffb11a49
1ef4081b2a506446db6831d83c6f7d0181c3be27
3550 F20101119_AAAGTF tilghman_m_Page_232thm.jpg
075309c3d80adb880ddde09358b5b2ad
5965d8018e0fc6eef9481e72cf8df2cb1623f6d5
3010 F20101119_AAAEMI tilghman_m_Page_175thm.jpg
af0897b6e70a09fc02625f38847fff43
89eacb998214d4387720c5dc9a1e8bc1211a0af7
31461 F20101119_AAAFJB tilghman_m_Page_155.QC.jpg
d988916d02c4d5c9b3601e2448115193
1da7069eb0cf49f5962d8e86e8538ad40298f9c6
139232 F20101119_AAAEZU tilghman_m_Page_189.jpg
1e9714022119a377b33f99e28079e3a0
3ed12757df9b5992d60fb63e22ccd5de5c6db310
113448 F20101119_AAAFWN tilghman_m_Page_111.jpg
8ae847a63cdc7d6d06b69bb6f51c3a42
bec67b9b131606238e391c703dbc7fe75203d677
268201 F20101119_AAAGTG UFE0014121_00001.mets FULL
760dcd143fb4aff77480c116a87e6882
730ecc57b5663dbe67d0bc3cd513ae1fe6722b1e
2446 F20101119_AAAEMJ tilghman_m_Page_144.txt
1d90da896d466b926b01dab7588c93dc
f954f81506aea70f2cb49b00c385feca26ab83df
87500 F20101119_AAAFJC tilghman_m_Page_179.pro
2a349411df93e4b86580033a5beba5a8
8074c1a2fd91ff917473f58024ae1ae13d0b6e7a
30799 F20101119_AAAEZV tilghman_m_Page_086.pro
37308b642898d3fab3be6d1c91a3a31e
03c54c07516cea96ce51f368c14249e835c54d4a
93450 F20101119_AAAFWO tilghman_m_Page_116.jpg
9c4814773c3149185668f3521568b99c
3d476f2ca7bcdc9a5c00cfbac5fb83619b8b9a6b
7855 F20101119_AAAEMK tilghman_m_Page_218thm.jpg
878c90039ee94f50427bc905434d2b4c
d09c34687c4d0232cafb446234d7be4d4ba77c12
2017 F20101119_AAAFJD tilghman_m_Page_050.txt
ef66b486967b69cb7a26850dd424242f
25fb31747f8c727822572b660286b85533aedbf3
9352 F20101119_AAAEZW tilghman_m_Page_099thm.jpg
4f4aa6631579a1ae7cb673e37a590850
52a099cc7d9b0330ce4b2d374b6cbc8793985851
94313 F20101119_AAAFWP tilghman_m_Page_118.jpg
3692d8b468f7b74a1b87d6f5af2b05d3
4189a37483a2e333ba9ac0fe76165c8193d1544f
131660 F20101119_AAAEML tilghman_m_Page_205.jpg
7871df360d8552bee9f5af75229255c4
3534d2fdde64521b84af686f2d7d54d0fa9f6f6a
2522 F20101119_AAAFJE tilghman_m_Page_166.txt
9b4d492829be4a24c0601c42257ce909
bd04c7438bdb83654d57dc79a8d28916715509dd
4378 F20101119_AAAEZX tilghman_m_Page_007.txt
b478f20c47705f55c1dfeb1e03411f2b
c06020a3f22353c929e2ad148bc9b6b82e83d224
136107 F20101119_AAAFWQ tilghman_m_Page_119.jpg
7729a8b07aa3f91364432654a84a958c
5b2e99fb7c1589b6fb06a9b15a265a991e634c85
73890 F20101119_AAAEMM tilghman_m_Page_117.jpg
f83d448488bfd9c999d4215a52dafbff
8dbd13b9fbb9f98412b9b2ac33595cd9e881d86f
F20101119_AAAFJF tilghman_m_Page_022.tif
c1171217f000db82cbd025ccdc2fa1cb
96fa7fc2d824dddd6eb01f6b38c42fa643c07b38
F20101119_AAAEZY tilghman_m_Page_153.tif
6814aec09d0ccd72607b6446abc622b2
b1f23346ff1496824ed2ce61c4c1ed9fdf7cc7a4
106946 F20101119_AAAFWR tilghman_m_Page_120.jpg
d3d821fcc45e157402d75cd5bd4f9344
17037dca40a9dd0bbf97869a9b3231aae41e13aa
112241 F20101119_AAAEMN tilghman_m_Page_146.jp2
a1d499e14cd448be0b0e4199602b4327
8368a74b610051aebe7371e833c20e59f96918f0
49096 F20101119_AAAFJG tilghman_m_Page_032.pro
c2cfc2c188161bbd6c83bf60fffacfbd
1e4218214d6ace2745e86ed21cc59b7c0d90434e
94599 F20101119_AAAEZZ tilghman_m_Page_023.jp2
92c58558dccb5367340454c4c38d66fd
019557fef81c2d57bcfefe677df9c2ee366126cc
49477 F20101119_AAAGGA tilghman_m_Page_090.pro
f1faccbd931fc9973af0e5d34cd5a573
d9f92e645acc25c44a2914b4c9ed4999ac07ba81
125766 F20101119_AAAFWS tilghman_m_Page_125.jpg
7fde30fb878bafbd1abf37da8b59d9a5
927dc991a560d0e106504b1fb303a268bdd9060d
35456 F20101119_AAAEMO tilghman_m_Page_131.pro
4ab88e28eb227cc115640eebc2712d48
970505bc47cd9d5bf3fcea89b83936af4adb6b5e
8707 F20101119_AAAFJH tilghman_m_Page_183thm.jpg
28a6a2f05b0487f413622e752ad58293
8689070d7cefe930d8728db7d54c3c178ee01a63
48330 F20101119_AAAGGB tilghman_m_Page_091.pro
4dc27bbe32a5d61f2d9bf347565181e1
d5181df68edb42173d91e487e134477ec7c5fb60
83702 F20101119_AAAFWT tilghman_m_Page_131.jpg
7c5a4e6dd209fba470160c6c63153d2f
390e56e0185601b5c1585e275b5c475f3f3c96ec
1977 F20101119_AAAEMP tilghman_m_Page_160.txt
b13f4c4db986903ec54cd0f614ccbef6
926dd9a054f60a94b25006257320b30ac7a3ce20
1901 F20101119_AAAFJI tilghman_m_Page_020.txt
3cac980ff9c113d3fa824b735fa07d81
ab383c41ec4efb59347c744f85f1239e9e41c7ed
48433 F20101119_AAAGGC tilghman_m_Page_092.pro
f46d9d7f848e0e3be5c56dbfa5d006a6
c17061d10e3d4f78f53f680d1a646d620b9a9b4a
97422 F20101119_AAAFWU tilghman_m_Page_133.jpg
25543515b2e41290de84bfd85b1c293f
54b9d0a1c4d59bbdda271ff252bbd052854688a9
30744 F20101119_AAAEMQ tilghman_m_Page_158.QC.jpg
34882dac86f79ccf735ae66b7065fcd6
54a68c381355f94004603543e7bcb6c764e7c06a
F20101119_AAAFJJ tilghman_m_Page_069.tif
fbd49d047d490c27ae0dd5da76ea431e
4f0a4566e275521d81d21b7de00c92b7764d109f
50265 F20101119_AAAGGD tilghman_m_Page_094.pro
78213ac79eb78d4ff19354210d83dfe9
d2522165805d0e2c0a9d9debf441085e8907bc29
98278 F20101119_AAAFWV tilghman_m_Page_141.jpg
8e2dd440aa5bd35e4c760cccbae43f2d
10a70db1273c654727c2044581a3c4c1d60a5ed0
82876 F20101119_AAAEMR tilghman_m_Page_199.jp2
34e4e7b058f2f3e287768bc96b7baa02
776d0aa6fad4cedd056f8881481ba684034547b7
1970 F20101119_AAAFJK tilghman_m_Page_032.txt
7638f37ff02d4be7d6e6a855b8c0336c
c022fafbaeeb99d07b6e0838b10acd00aa265226
49666 F20101119_AAAGGE tilghman_m_Page_096.pro
ffc4ca45054e62d614cddedbec45178d
877054afa07c97e067bfe84e7f7c7d77cd1f2d5b
111271 F20101119_AAAFWW tilghman_m_Page_144.jpg
3cc0b988b504528b5df14cf208aeb9ed
63628c2dc1981160088d0bef46221b9ff15e99ac
93578 F20101119_AAAEMS tilghman_m_Page_217.jp2
80636466f966e6b2df745171b1755010
920e875fd9da70bff4a236102653fa1e8d3e9ed2
105371 F20101119_AAAFJL tilghman_m_Page_045.jp2
a4c6900b37339b8de9f0c2527f16e622
66cb2723cb8c1c8ce7ed69a6340cd323a0f78323
36935 F20101119_AAAGGF tilghman_m_Page_103.pro
1648baef07777a2da3fa60e1d558a30c
d803558ca4419cea79cc60839d33b643eda287bf
105203 F20101119_AAAFWX tilghman_m_Page_146.jpg
51f3e8512aa308e2aa72260da0d36916
a2e78f66b27e340f24d9eb04dc8859b148c86c39
8381 F20101119_AAAEMT tilghman_m_Page_001.QC.jpg
a1e9ef954ae34da6b93111a6f0c32594
f39ee5c31c6e6270c845672b603a740c657afe47
F20101119_AAAFJM tilghman_m_Page_046.tif
611fcd7ef48718205e105c594126ca31
04b2e85e79fda19c8d9775621809bf1d3d51843e
51825 F20101119_AAAGGG tilghman_m_Page_105.pro
6ea09c38d071d56744f410b6c86a5075
0ce17006244bf62a2d698b5ed594de8e2e918a93
102784 F20101119_AAAFWY tilghman_m_Page_148.jpg
83ed5596ea235229c05328d1f11ebdae
c09a2a314549195bf9471fe5dc59dd63b63b361d
33202 F20101119_AAAFJN tilghman_m_Page_064.QC.jpg
52ec26264d1f67dafca69738985727e2
ede90872d64431613bca6830e507ae93cd65fe52
55121 F20101119_AAAGGH tilghman_m_Page_108.pro
40aa94295e4e4ee7c34756b80cbf708b
e5ce7b037ebdd81b6fe6069594359fb851345c00
102338 F20101119_AAAFWZ tilghman_m_Page_151.jpg
8546ee524506337c4233a8269be14d75
6de10beeb9491e2378b4ef6e89f6eaf2d0be53c8
F20101119_AAAEMU tilghman_m_Page_161.tif
78ec6b1ecbadcd9a18d015f621587866
37586e1054062af0f05ab819d5c8c10d655b86ac
81557 F20101119_AAAFJO tilghman_m_Page_011.pro
a526a8c12f5373a253c1ae3c32e49ab2
f5d8c8f68ba17ca1c1c87df4ff89b853799b58ea
31808 F20101119_AAAGGI tilghman_m_Page_109.pro
c9b8e2c021d1c0cd8be36f1dbf07313b
8e2ee6f513f4121dd00c69bd9beae24d125b0741
F20101119_AAAEMV tilghman_m_Page_105.tif
afbda78cf1a1c476481e067af119544c
0d0fd9086ee3918054b9281fe42f1b5a03f01112
5772 F20101119_AAAFJP tilghman_m_Page_231.pro
8211b3abbeeec9dd24c63da601f735bb
3d4f91ece55b3fb24a3390d5cd8f08bdfc62c397
48976 F20101119_AAAGGJ tilghman_m_Page_110.pro
30157b24d538f43f7a0e792a94ebdcc3
a8f2fc3f5862d2f5bf41f32f3b288b022c6e5b53
7486 F20101119_AAAEMW tilghman_m_Page_227thm.jpg
656a93f7d805c2c2e0f0f6ee230ad49a
f7c1a2dbb3b496bc3decdfabb48c419b4ce7bf84
61915 F20101119_AAAGGK tilghman_m_Page_112.pro
e4eeaa24abb1abda4b315d0ecc70f7e0
faa6e41e696a23f243f6ccd5d962c797abae4e6c
2741 F20101119_AAAEMX tilghman_m_Page_125.txt
c36583ed97b4445bc14dde8e44c06c25
b6d686b14012d3422598e4496b2da05158182b09
18822 F20101119_AAAFJQ tilghman_m_Page_004.pro
1dcf869727db6289084c797739fdc345
70cff09b100c0ba50a75e194d266648a0f39e449
33026 F20101119_AAAGGL tilghman_m_Page_114.pro
0a5f48c7cd65e2225942a3715586423a
9b69dddc8b13476a8377e6bcce6287f51e5e7841
29858 F20101119_AAAEMY tilghman_m_Page_078.QC.jpg
81c607f50d25f879d725100cb96ca07e
9b60f7ec0fe6ca133def915bfe50edfb1fc19342
39576 F20101119_AAAFJR tilghman_m_Page_196.QC.jpg
14abdc04717e5e75aa156a7992ecd02c
d3b02ad0282e69dd6e1991fd1b240f967fbf1948
32593 F20101119_AAAEMZ tilghman_m_Page_044.QC.jpg
58f9c92d52533201fb32f279eb03c619
d9f71464f9d5e6e1d60eccdae0f0af332df60991
6778 F20101119_AAAFJS tilghman_m_Page_165.QC.jpg
0f184f3aed5d9cb4c428fb55634de771
3d6746033978d384e46e62177fad6d2241f64a55
61329 F20101119_AAAGGM tilghman_m_Page_115.pro
8fbcdb609b92f6ad1a7484cf79fba9a7
52c9bf8c69dae5a1c9315abca7d65c165e7292e6
31403 F20101119_AAAFJT tilghman_m_Page_028.QC.jpg
06df3011169742cd51b85a9512f564fd
febca98b3e11a1dda71b66b9c962c8dd9438fca5
37189 F20101119_AAAGGN tilghman_m_Page_116.pro
34d37b9a4b867f9a9e3c102b55fd787c
69156df7b8875acd9822895350518b12927df512
F20101119_AAAFJU tilghman_m_Page_018.tif
4ab5b9dc9beca8b6defdda051fb73c88
b63b7478f4db7b8466707a785454220e2cb06511
30879 F20101119_AAAGGO tilghman_m_Page_117.pro
7aac75b9d5404951be8a997caebabb30
fe6ef13f4debd96128e263b058123393668df3ae
2190 F20101119_AAAFJV tilghman_m_Page_201.txt
6b5f3dcc249e17c09bc5cb2a9adea585
7ee414a2a8e670976bc01b4f61481cc7336f37ce
30349 F20101119_AAAGGP tilghman_m_Page_123.pro
e619928df824649298984da81872d785
2ec9ff31ecca4c00721b1b8b65dc1633b2312998
61795 F20101119_AAAFJW tilghman_m_Page_219.pro
aab95e66bc9388a01499ee6cafd98e45
04d66aee92fb092c77645680c6f5f506b1f6ce33
31140 F20101119_AAAGGQ tilghman_m_Page_124.pro
4ac3dcdbf0340ae0d79857d657f65679
2806560705fd0db94e84ff461937286e5cfdf9ea
58646 F20101119_AAAFJX tilghman_m_Page_125.pro
3af8de060e0664cd0f8410f96cd2d4d2
548f567e4b44451a96bb7c2cf08c6197434cbbd8
48065 F20101119_AAAGGR tilghman_m_Page_127.pro
88116ea6395402d8203925635c2bcf7b
25a6ebcc486e30d0a5fef21049d7bf7e8eaf8eb2
4010 F20101119_AAAFJY tilghman_m_Page_202.txt
08d2a3422141c3896780c6844ecf9880
67c541ad91ef4d53872fcf647c2c98b5099818e6
58176 F20101119_AAAGGS tilghman_m_Page_130.pro
cdc0366b1c048d930b14e6015defbb50
0aba92856866266ceeec50cbff75c5380d43eda7
87439 F20101119_AAAFJZ tilghman_m_Page_176.pro
a560e30c2d12d16a2cb9505fca906da5
3685d80fcba75d89dd94e3b380aec2274f20291e
44328 F20101119_AAAGGT tilghman_m_Page_132.pro
8a4f45798bd2d6fd72ab69d25a08faef
cedfbe677524d5f7acdd6c696f0e4e2771b29586
34963 F20101119_AAAGGU tilghman_m_Page_137.pro
092440f8bfa5975a1f606ab74f0e4bff
be17efd65390433a52e18a4f7743c01dc2091ad8
6994 F20101119_AAAESA tilghman_m_Page_080thm.jpg
1fd5bc30dc17999790806373fb764e21
b2db47ed6699d489de5954cfe073f3907b1f0c4b
51148 F20101119_AAAGGV tilghman_m_Page_138.pro
a6da8329e775c632178f2500b8150e38
e7e998dac8e3281a61d161f2b87a263f66a89b8b
8321 F20101119_AAAESB tilghman_m_Page_046thm.jpg
43e1277b60af7fc4ebaaaccd3bdccfb2
7a2cbad0e328a43964cb95b3819b3762c2b3a23c
52284 F20101119_AAAGGW tilghman_m_Page_140.pro
ec9cc4547143e0332e3baeb5a9cfbf00
d29c36f08d4b344ebae6c2e13902ad481d93cc7b
106478 F20101119_AAAESC tilghman_m_Page_021.jp2
38fab67a4f76034e2187594de73ba880
f312a01e675f75b997909741deab8860373d0714
48128 F20101119_AAAGGX tilghman_m_Page_141.pro
355dc1b575d9bc11adbc914de9d8824a
2bd7c40b2dc2dd0becbba08ab3efecb54e240e5a
33814 F20101119_AAAESD tilghman_m_Page_050.QC.jpg
33dc0ebf717e66ee9f20bf35ef41c61b
ca0e871eda8bb4d7f9c2259a48d8064d90754d8b
50933 F20101119_AAAGGY tilghman_m_Page_142.pro
21e2c535a93039efcfa2342c52605c45
e97307065af63b3d18714fa44161a5775301572e
115993 F20101119_AAAESE tilghman_m_Page_193.jp2
70500f96268946ed3b3fbdad0c6eb5b1
e6ef8f34cd4ebf06ca9cb92442bd07c368050eec
52238 F20101119_AAAGGZ tilghman_m_Page_143.pro
f6f819096341bb6d6832fdc34ed81052
cbb214c8be053977993e219e1abd7d93839b2b6c
98414 F20101119_AAAESF tilghman_m_Page_073.jpg
e6a2f481bbcf6a3f0b528147a86b26de
b9b9c6cedc65900e830c0fac3c1803f152cfc001
8302 F20101119_AAAESG tilghman_m_Page_064thm.jpg
4d25ae5e7b53fe6a3cc4da184218ee2d
c779ebac845b4ee76385934b2dc61dfcaec8c5a3
34147 F20101119_AAAESH tilghman_m_Page_215.pro
dab5468d910c386643bb267f140093bc
9ab541f59b4a37aada128dedb384c5ddfd864607
50219 F20101119_AAAFPA tilghman_m_Page_024.pro
b0d89dec72051b1ad91d27d15ef6a5d3
8a421b51195ef4af24a15372887bbf7a271594f7
101591 F20101119_AAAESI tilghman_m_Page_066.jp2
19a93185b0b97add9d91536d74f6f9e0
43992db29aa13481f3501687577286a7f8a26119
F20101119_AAAFPB tilghman_m_Page_012.tif
934d8853a322a385cb2f0977bae0f9b5
1b4408cf0019e9085bbbd133416ad391ce1a8463
F20101119_AAAESJ tilghman_m_Page_203.tif
d6b9d2401107fa3d66666983163a5125
6611e04b10582e988ffbbffeec4455f293f0041d
3610 F20101119_AAAFPC tilghman_m_Page_187.txt
802bb9f3c78f813e46e9d0699494acda
e7a627c4251a329bbc5e411d35788c5330a2c039
39286 F20101119_AAAESK tilghman_m_Page_225.jp2
638a08b285c6574ab724dd7556cb6446
47aa19c09603a0705cc26c56f43c62b8a65cf7d5
100767 F20101119_AAAFPD tilghman_m_Page_094.jpg
e99ec50d4cdd404435b78b8309429523
93aff9f2de57007b5c955ef9ade707fd89121a57
104867 F20101119_AAAESL tilghman_m_Page_102.jpg
8267df9d57dd6e29a35916e1f693b7e9
46d310439ca227535805b581ca041af95b91fa66
8513 F20101119_AAAFPE tilghman_m_Page_172thm.jpg
49bc3e69b3f0320e878b37dbce25c382
bf889d92a273a92cdd8260624f819ed8e7e04a20
1783 F20101119_AAAESM tilghman_m_Page_040.txt
87f34bbded790b8a0a3f85d0a519611a
33a521feb84ad1447e6c17e302824f3b69c64c57
2261 F20101119_AAAFPF tilghman_m_Page_069.txt
9f0e810ede00ff08a98286ffde84a6c9
b496f5a216a9ca61a7d23d9f0b11c1d2394e66dd
1948 F20101119_AAAESN tilghman_m_Page_028.txt
4f80425bb578dfbe2360dc112d40224e
e2aa65e3451d947da2f8c59b74be05f50e290e85
104743 F20101119_AAAFPG tilghman_m_Page_213.jpg
b2db9316177346f7e85dcd0b5c2dd423
55f73f3109fe76ad1b0904de45777dc4b301ea19
131810 F20101119_AAAESO tilghman_m_Page_191.jp2
63a818d47c93882716aad410358bda97
a2fc52fb6ab46a19b7e4dd43e82fb330326bc2ee
F20101119_AAAFPH tilghman_m_Page_140.tif
8e4cf6eba0c50bda82e9fedfb7fdf892
97173458acc9b418a7857c799030ce41551c1add
26620 F20101119_AAAGMA tilghman_m_Page_022.QC.jpg
4330bc0a6941686989edbeada17b83a4
ebb8a3a9d00916d20543d0f752ebc995c857d416
2220 F20101119_AAAESP tilghman_m_Page_220thm.jpg
426db6d1d5041f12fbfa13abd7c4ccbd
a548688db83e14bfc82236732ba7da7446c25ea7
121784 F20101119_AAAFPI tilghman_m_Page_130.jpg
50538398c03137cced7ce76dfb1201ed
e57f96b68bca166b282f76aa9a5de3d822109105
7187 F20101119_AAAGMB tilghman_m_Page_023thm.jpg
bb78ad329f28ee28a82db533f31cc46f
9a222957d08faf66d468f3147a2baddd91c39c4b
90609 F20101119_AAAESQ tilghman_m_Page_136.jpg
c811252d075e750f4d022f5c60febef9
221a504e5982046f7e3d5a3aaa22061b36f71b9e
127520 F20101119_AAAFPJ tilghman_m_Page_115.jpg
fada7b49181fb903c5ddd017e690b64e
64b23f50f08b5f97b07770c149d6bb11938a8c3e
27617 F20101119_AAAGMC tilghman_m_Page_023.QC.jpg
0f1e5413a45b20a13e0ed80a9e71e146
4a411d8319eb33edaeb8d46e52600d1c6caa1fd3
2001 F20101119_AAAESR tilghman_m_Page_121.txt
ef63b46ec50389f9b90350e312d54168
4e2775febdf2cbe8c9039b8b928a3aba9a23dc78
37061 F20101119_AAAFPK tilghman_m_Page_010.QC.jpg
460b937d47447ec3a4282cad4df4e491
c45fa165af27c9281e27f0784b66999e3630e94d
8212 F20101119_AAAGMD tilghman_m_Page_024thm.jpg
f06d9918bd3a10afcb899c6a620d4caf
0b1d4acbe83126a7ca3b9789fdd22911518a52d2
8269 F20101119_AAAFCA tilghman_m_Page_140thm.jpg
75840b0ca277b2b7df97c7fcfc67972e
71baafb6cb8c74c4a38d006e3f96bcba7247f08f
6972 F20101119_AAAESS tilghman_m_Page_014thm.jpg
8cf566975d39fe6b70c9bccfaedc5cd1
3e2ef3b3aa3d57a96ecc4aa5b1691a102fffe70e
30424 F20101119_AAAFPL tilghman_m_Page_020.QC.jpg
390f7f1d4245207f16fb7a6ce273aaf2
ffb241fd405c4983f1c63036ad57a082313c386e
33111 F20101119_AAAGME tilghman_m_Page_025.QC.jpg
bb6e6ef14ac8b3b452a18aea3520db01
5239b637f4ad9a41425e5cd2888a13d31a48d0b8
135299 F20101119_AAAFCB tilghman_m_Page_172.jpg
ee2351dafa68fdcdfd5e4900844f321b
f01fc028276649a7fb33b627729fd264dd97de7e
131759 F20101119_AAAEST tilghman_m_Page_119.jp2
a894630ad09e1e482aca5a80e287b025
7595bb78541c67cf4fb9341740271be8b3591255
145227 F20101119_AAAFPM tilghman_m_Page_200.jpg
7cf70c9a93ff3d4dd3f42d034afb67be
09654183581762d6fc09ae8ebb9a2e3cb06d7a49
8150 F20101119_AAAGMF tilghman_m_Page_026thm.jpg
d554a856f79b5687c696319f3a7a9f32
8baef0b01a40d5102266e6bc37713f6b3e282d07
F20101119_AAAFCC tilghman_m_Page_023.tif
8b54803aa1f162c17930d3b9f4476036
7142d94b2c290c6299abcbeff6edd3263a05c5b9
25445 F20101119_AAAESU tilghman_m_Page_198.QC.jpg
0a36603d04da5cc3d5695ea48c2434c3
bd64e4f4120f3cd4e813a8ec519c7882343de216
116858 F20101119_AAAFPN tilghman_m_Page_206.jp2
61eea79879c1abb8acbec67eed599e18
31ebafe36a83a4a2bbb0a0a142f0b019663613a0
33597 F20101119_AAAGMG tilghman_m_Page_026.QC.jpg
ca7239caf4b6ad9d37c77585db9c6dc7
00134cfa0a85444e95e8d75588161faafd5c97d4
17033 F20101119_AAAFCD tilghman_m_Page_221.pro
d016c4df9c6bc517ee11d5af0e57c92d
09bb6ce257deb5577b2c1ae6359c76557e340b7d
F20101119_AAAESV tilghman_m_Page_137.tif
90ebcbbe6dd0232e185e04b8003c6072
afc2334d27cb90c8e05690b17a7b6c972a4950fa
9241 F20101119_AAAFPO tilghman_m_Page_100thm.jpg
00421eb40a6b25ade48300a1e7f77494
59390ecf3181cecd8bb7a11e3520b2761851a3f8
7836 F20101119_AAAGMH tilghman_m_Page_028thm.jpg
d08ebc9c0d82a3f0366e4e359d1d4812
0244b82e3d118aee225e3f3b95b20262258a7142
F20101119_AAAFCE tilghman_m_Page_024.tif
2faf9d08cca659541858f29dfd8e7432
b2f9b573798da3a57ab86995c831988be994afac
F20101119_AAAESW tilghman_m_Page_091.tif
c7e2fe1a54412f70d7a704f3b1dc2a4a
7cb80af94163949657cd5d7facef64273045a011
44694 F20101119_AAAFPP tilghman_m_Page_168.jpg
2e650ff6fef060ef2aff40af1252aa55
afc42cf4ecd9494c81ab3aa87cfb274f9648e3d2
32101 F20101119_AAAGMI tilghman_m_Page_029.QC.jpg
dca75302fda7ed521e16177065e22cd8
b6a3af575e688d7dd36fb9e73e339229a3d9990b
31517 F20101119_AAAFCF tilghman_m_Page_031.QC.jpg
2b4323151846633250a5a85b7a284eb2
4015db4848c573c9a30c9b4dd759c36bb138fb54
25484 F20101119_AAAESX tilghman_m_Page_001.jpg
8cec0b41e037bd1c951f05350861129a
95110894e6e661baf4001cf3ee9aaca0a0a89846
1063 F20101119_AAAFPQ tilghman_m_Page_225.txt
e3338c5b5f822529603329514e718524
9511087e3c2c92302e897cf969ebec577ea5f559
35080 F20101119_AAAGMJ tilghman_m_Page_030.QC.jpg
55b8c5d7bc11e6b6dbe1728cfc6f502c
7d321c9cd54395f5b20550349e57a792775969b3
30870 F20101119_AAAFCG tilghman_m_Page_066.QC.jpg
1fdcfe45c70365dbe4e757835a8cbbcd
1fd9cbafd43954c6bc07d272e6b5784eb56e8f9f
130582 F20101119_AAAESY tilghman_m_Page_112.jpg
b763b92511666c670ac17a17fee0415d
10fa05291d731765c14b7f9348320e81bca71cf3
F20101119_AAAFPR tilghman_m_Page_091.txt
52d4261031bc51af36875bca1a8c5288
c94e511de921d8c0335b48abcbd22e0a232d07ba
8002 F20101119_AAAGMK tilghman_m_Page_031thm.jpg
e2aad2fa19ad64b6f84033c1ef740720
f606e33c5b63c044f062bca7b399b34fe7b8cd84
48761 F20101119_AAAFCH tilghman_m_Page_120.pro
a55090c98918c594bd71ec039c4c43ec
f6412078fe8ea189738268b33d398ddea75a5064
130642 F20101119_AAAESZ tilghman_m_Page_099.jp2
986bc960e290be33d3e60ce3905a8662
792a74759930865654bee23dd68bb144705a4b08
38767 F20101119_AAAFPS tilghman_m_Page_164.QC.jpg
4401e99e0a6166da4db05e46b0b5c2ba
6eba16f67d7467515f6e4ac9403f4c5fa0c09bed
8015 F20101119_AAAGML tilghman_m_Page_032thm.jpg
3e278a6cd46b487bce7848ba09dc03e9
feab157f11c4c792397408c11794c9430afb6d06
F20101119_AAAFCI tilghman_m_Page_180.tif
d6884c095b4c7fbbc11deb6caf9efb87
1400a7798435c8cfd79ab87ebc03ad71f53165bc
F20101119_AAAFPT tilghman_m_Page_117.tif
fca33832b32a2511a99ba8bb343e1352
e0c379024ef65f0cc8a3fcc4bfda64d4e961154b
32804 F20101119_AAAGMM tilghman_m_Page_032.QC.jpg
cd0843ce6081e57fd3bae7f43d887b2b
efd42ab864142d2f9e58980bcd2de7f5d7f1bf90
90841 F20101119_AAAFPU tilghman_m_Page_224.pro
369c2967337ed9eb942f24887af440e7
dc7145025f56f263eabf72917fb57840c046ea80
8139 F20101119_AAAGMN tilghman_m_Page_033thm.jpg
1787d00f11b846970336c419134b5c99
a6c8c2d6dc8c8ef14dce1d0bac6fe32a7dce4059
104197 F20101119_AAAFCJ tilghman_m_Page_149.jpg
d91b7e4dc79d82203f63f9f64985b46f
c81e04c6e4076e4f7ca50a21292cb84522d7a3fb
4660 F20101119_AAAFPV tilghman_m_Page_006.txt
89ed9b96de8d373c37203f1cda19ed19
82b5d7c6ae933f33fae3253d37dfa1dd3a2372a8
32310 F20101119_AAAGMO tilghman_m_Page_033.QC.jpg
a67186d1b983ce0db3342399faed57ad
00f1c89e028637c5a9fa385d0a2cf809e8cce285
F20101119_AAAFCK tilghman_m_Page_220.tif
7f29df020c75cbbe352ebcc4ee741b30
68f54324dd9e50b234763a1e5def92b4c3628d97
8190 F20101119_AAAGMP tilghman_m_Page_034thm.jpg
bca8df09afd87ec5fd40103726067332
38daa92f2dc44a3be5750c3d7edffa678d94d04a
8545 F20101119_AAAFCL tilghman_m_Page_159thm.jpg
d0cc977635558906ab649911470d0759
c0993a70bb07ca4860824a450be6f69cfd3e50cc
71933 F20101119_AAAFPW tilghman_m_Page_181.pro
ff1a56d64bae587ea216084d260e921d
9166c88ff65a0b9a4cbea8e9d81b856efc851f09
7198 F20101119_AAAGMQ tilghman_m_Page_035thm.jpg
6034816d5b213be4bed9a618ce0df1a7
7cf8a87cbed20495b74ff783136936f1de267808
8324 F20101119_AAAFCM tilghman_m_Page_105thm.jpg
fadfd5028ecc46e0474139d4250fce2d
2a5b75c4106ab994600e88359feda2de6c773c5d
F20101119_AAAFPX tilghman_m_Page_214.tif
4ef6b90030b5cf07a76f8bbbddd01379
7591cbc9596f42c4435d069117da272b11515078
22426 F20101119_AAAGMR tilghman_m_Page_035.QC.jpg
887a08a1237ecf05252affc4428f60c1
1188a94ee200886bd28f5e1837f013d609a505bf
2030 F20101119_AAAFCN tilghman_m_Page_026.txt
aaad01afc7fa3924e3c154bb0141ef92
15d209306c5d1b40487393954f616d4e765bedde
F20101119_AAAFPY tilghman_m_Page_051.tif
c4ba2c18110744d3dd0adb85be55a98b
b02cb1efc9025d459198ce8508eafff2628d7697
1247 F20101119_AAAFCO tilghman_m_Page_003.QC.jpg
44c8429c40f2beb6bbaf0d5033597163
d87d23843b0e7262ad289810bc1f6aa7ecea78ce
6235 F20101119_AAAFPZ tilghman_m_Page_198thm.jpg
362db7a60c153bafc6c7c9c1b404096d
bf752dad4e87dca4ae58721709a084c2926ddd4a
7593 F20101119_AAAGMS tilghman_m_Page_036thm.jpg
c0266d489f956db555c4718e43417865
eecd6b05d88aef48e5fb0a6ae48c1ebf828e90b8
35002 F20101119_AAAFCP tilghman_m_Page_015.QC.jpg
25ba41c820f7dde5d3b37db5f22195ca
76904219474fd7234146b76cb369aeec6880d2a3
33275 F20101119_AAAGMT tilghman_m_Page_037.QC.jpg
ac5b6fa0631c322350eaea1bd768f1a8
10eaae887031b0fb9f3027bade687149d2c3ae51
715 F20101119_AAAEYA tilghman_m_Page_209.txt
34139ba5abac793098e790ac4695bea9
a6ca5afd7dfa1ea004c8886344d13ae40dc2ebbc
509391 F20101119_AAAFCQ tilghman_m_Page_107.jp2
44e3ee9fdd78067624b7f7bdeb34bd0f
1bb339be40a26cc9592738b42898b235977a9c35
8531 F20101119_AAAGMU tilghman_m_Page_038thm.jpg
26e6ed90930073d00a8bad9dfd1c67ec
7d36ed109c7282e4e07b70bb96359c0eaf063b34
F20101119_AAAEYB tilghman_m_Page_194.tif
92d19c28759ce4202dde36d672bdfec9
65c46b0825619aa31d603bec8707d9ae21096011
44167 F20101119_AAAFCR tilghman_m_Page_232.jp2
d6645bd8d015933397442ad581263c2a
b4c0f6070d1a14f423830edb1d0760c9e2caa151
27938 F20101119_AAAGMV tilghman_m_Page_038.QC.jpg
16a1ea5728517ac53dfdddfc256355bf
ffac51416f0ef339b6482456cff0c5f844b18889
28537 F20101119_AAAEYC tilghman_m_Page_080.pro
a3060aad7c772af49a99dd2c0b35e68f
d702d2ace2e067b41de8fedfe127eda7cd0a3d4d
1968 F20101119_AAAFCS tilghman_m_Page_044.txt
996ec70708f68c7b1938d3e434d155ac
993386f5c0091016f086d86573f276caa472a017
7568 F20101119_AAAGMW tilghman_m_Page_040thm.jpg
a8f0bb7b2de7923b210e419691765e6a
5c503a55539b8f9ec14660b609ff5c2bc7cd9419
37545 F20101119_AAAEYD tilghman_m_Page_183.QC.jpg
8064c1e2a0d9c7b9f53a69e2a635af27
a5275ddd373e9bb404299222224b2d8ee08bf535
3192 F20101119_AAAFCT tilghman_m_Page_098.txt
c497297d872acf0daf4e75c157988464
da8189e6ba45b8ef3d4beb7b54ac8c09a2018237
8174 F20101119_AAAGMX tilghman_m_Page_042thm.jpg
7fdbb38f2ac1235db7ba38ebb68c6a41
d72c7f36931ce60df0d3ec6c10fbe3c8a3094acb
103812 F20101119_AAAEYE tilghman_m_Page_051.jpg
26402f220b3d041fad6b4f88985a7301
479c8b821196f36c53e3926f62b81a4195103224
38955 F20101119_AAAFCU tilghman_m_Page_229.QC.jpg
ca9c4648f3798919fd164d6db0274186
1b3d8384a8d6b956b23b63419e030bc957c0475a
33332 F20101119_AAAGMY tilghman_m_Page_043.QC.jpg
824d3cfa26db37aad7c61275974fadcb
0723e4d32b4557bc8a6e246f5379408b8871772a
95409 F20101119_AAAEYF tilghman_m_Page_031.jpg
23bdc1051504d131e7cd65e673835ac5
d39cdcea4c2f111ab4aa8144ddbddbf2298d34ad
33350 F20101119_AAAFCV tilghman_m_Page_160.QC.jpg
22162776a04252bccf91a8a9c38cb950
918a4eb5090c110eb0af91bbeb722482d40d6a33
7877 F20101119_AAAGMZ tilghman_m_Page_045thm.jpg
5a185357d83a067f543b45f630abd47c
40aa094854a95bf8ac17109afc04ce4c3a613564
F20101119_AAAEYG tilghman_m_Page_155.tif
578bfd43825afacc9b55a31689bc81ad
9b27957c51fd591138ff01d3266751dd125f5fcf
109187 F20101119_AAAFCW tilghman_m_Page_170.jp2
a8ef6a43e71d623bb0f34eaaffacc14f
ed0fe0b59fd07733cc077bb20ec65692e54676f3
74783 F20101119_AAAEYH tilghman_m_Page_214.jpg
6e49cbf99867a637722a6be1be43aa1a
34b08386631e4128b9dbbdc43d35304a89fc8a7a
112694 F20101119_AAAFCX tilghman_m_Page_140.jp2
be7e6108bd4e7cedb8a5f5bb2e72d18d
0c421fa34a40e525930784205a7d253b8c68bf0a
100883 F20101119_AAAFVA tilghman_m_Page_027.jpg
d58546fcf32114f02bb952792346f4c5
9c2c0bbb347a98e9b215c9453391cc9133c62bc7
F20101119_AAAEYI tilghman_m_Page_061.tif
9cdb1fbda38f6e43c5b5a7ac95fd3548
a6e20f719c5c44a84abcc7e6d24854bcb0a870f5
2507 F20101119_AAAFCY tilghman_m_Page_213.txt
e0b0acaec115ef556e474ef2d3b58e85
d6bc71abfe46c176ed9a86661ab6aef206cb16f9
98768 F20101119_AAAFVB tilghman_m_Page_028.jpg
6e8ca03ab8198d9280f6020c5987c508
bb6a5669921605b8c3ed38effd0b7587a684da16
1051946 F20101119_AAAEYJ tilghman_m_Page_126.jp2
e96ac3c1d75709378824752e2dad35e4
b1e867920dfdfeef9399ea551ae9e5dcbfd2552b
8029 F20101119_AAAFCZ tilghman_m_Page_161thm.jpg
e2538e9d66d07cb36317f669b8fc5be0
834be3dd02f1f2c4523ccdf2b5939791a6aad97d
99077 F20101119_AAAFVC tilghman_m_Page_029.jpg
95d1fe70e8f9eee74fd130a9d177e366
7a3f7bb552b1d8a4ab167f7f9388b3fba03ddc93
33824 F20101119_AAAEYK tilghman_m_Page_097.QC.jpg
0471fa13d5a424361e612782ff549e0e
7f9e42d688af60e348e1f65fbc12e9e235a9c60e
106501 F20101119_AAAFVD tilghman_m_Page_030.jpg
dc4deae9cbb1c4199f4f46fb17ffb2c5
9b3905f3f8861b11c9ba67288edf86413735f6d2
130606 F20101119_AAAEYL tilghman_m_Page_170.jpg
ea81a680fb01a401f1625ee9b5d61f53
0e8f1c3d7fbd5a436347ad148a831bb38ae16359
99807 F20101119_AAAFVE tilghman_m_Page_032.jpg
5e6c05b7875469eefb44358da46ce092
510828d4b82685ca778c47b9f56f0310b029fbaa
62327 F20101119_AAAELA tilghman_m_Page_229.pro
fcb275e397e0b43d9fbfb0ba83abff06
8e42b754544a10432c2890b25330eb50f4aa87c6
793261 F20101119_AAAEYM tilghman_m_Page_038.jp2
dd780e09864036503002bb7977a65165
fee382c45f258f68c1d2f5fb5ab5d24cf4621846
107165 F20101119_AAAFVF tilghman_m_Page_033.jpg
b2ffec405ec31fc712865733a8ee8944
f5ac93f42a98dc8f2b1c827f91e43cfd445e8cf0
7474 F20101119_AAAELB tilghman_m_Page_195thm.jpg
e3723876fd4044fcd4eed14ed4445ffe
8a4e00b9fd4bd79cf6a4cef73ec1e9005560b2ba
32874 F20101119_AAAEYN tilghman_m_Page_121.QC.jpg
914ac9f0bcd0a8a58db9e71495066f81
3d58dbb490882c9c41c980e5452b92f3bcc0e9f2
63318 F20101119_AAAFVG tilghman_m_Page_035.jpg
1a1e68b32b4d70616a779bf3a321d146
6606f496b953b66869f700653efeb12af6ed6384
88488 F20101119_AAAELC tilghman_m_Page_023.jpg
794a205877103fadb8604e552a57d13b
46140ba7f21e5c63739da579f93f968e3ffe2094
8606 F20101119_AAAEYO tilghman_m_Page_102thm.jpg
7aea9e25d5ee4ffa63885e345e65f10d
f04743203729e79eb88f09d357571af1d8bdef19
102549 F20101119_AAAFVH tilghman_m_Page_037.jpg
c853c29b75e7214e63a3f57907ea7bcb
c000bfc565da6bb7f636fd388c775f1d8cd97a14
10053 F20101119_AAAGSA tilghman_m_Page_194.QC.jpg
c6ffc8bb8c4340a0cc7cdb52066fc4eb
e00ce1b2b99348ed73e906d9179d96a1000f0831
34238 F20101119_AAAELD tilghman_m_Page_085.pro
f0dd217b6bfc4ed4eeb4a95e1481d450
f097bf8e34dc1b67cc1d9be61cf3ab7242b0a816
31228 F20101119_AAAEYP tilghman_m_Page_052.QC.jpg
4d3aa2591ab4243049f9c30692bfc278
74fa96f61939de2ccebcc1c6ce773aed2ebe0228
99930 F20101119_AAAFVI tilghman_m_Page_039.jpg
ca9b9348eb059b7e5889789325cd2099
4cf9fa550fe0e3fadf7d65b80d3c349ab4285862
8855 F20101119_AAAGSB tilghman_m_Page_200thm.jpg
83cb474b192c1d6801a440c8f185fd3e
197f254cd09b0b99f23a65010771693f8fa6b6e5
31708 F20101119_AAAELE tilghman_m_Page_034.QC.jpg
ffe90bf88b12f95e31fbcf328d75abca
cbb71b7bce0311f173e8fa76fd17633b47acd1c1
8059 F20101119_AAAEYQ tilghman_m_Page_029thm.jpg
78bd2d25ec28fbb079a6fd820cf5aa25
ae6bfa6ad92bd778a2ca153f38fd6e148bcd590d
92979 F20101119_AAAFVJ tilghman_m_Page_040.jpg
b028778c29934ad6e77b368ac649b504
a3830f945cb3cd439c12b13e2e39a7447af2cdde
39996 F20101119_AAAGSC tilghman_m_Page_200.QC.jpg
b7d8157f66c478b4a254d03c5f70af65
621f7f8ab0d9c23dffce601a7e96a6d97b414c12
112605 F20101119_AAAELF tilghman_m_Page_056.jp2
7b18ea45ac4f3120b11b7a3ad13ac07b
628bbb88e9beca2f79418f55640e11aceea0b080
25498 F20101119_AAAEYR tilghman_m_Page_085.QC.jpg
7ef6a4124b4d1dcf839c974f7eb65085
e14ccea9737dac8ead4421f1f158767869403b5a
104648 F20101119_AAAFVK tilghman_m_Page_042.jpg
051101db82ceacf60dc089a0d24bac46
4dc3299e74eeb87b3d2346858954b6eb00354b8a
4323 F20101119_AAAGSD tilghman_m_Page_201thm.jpg
567ac79c44c2463a2aaf3e32531b72fa
dfcd2412dfff6d7d00b46b38a5eaf67d6e9ed550
32972 F20101119_AAAELG tilghman_m_Page_095.pro
48372759449f4e9b7dc1c4348f88117f
91279809b47ba87c8716d6d0c690db171a7e2398
7954 F20101119_AAAFIA tilghman_m_Page_041thm.jpg
c389411a2cd2c4b023d9528cca475921
32d5fe8d68514c62c4d3cef5189a1dd3f0ab8615
F20101119_AAAEYS tilghman_m_Page_216.tif
b792edaa9e74acda0165299ea5ab2c71
7d27ba518f7821442159b5878a2b02f0d5e26f68
104329 F20101119_AAAFVL tilghman_m_Page_043.jpg
14b8a252cb477edbf6ece3a788f6987e
a43d70364f34640e671ac1add2cefa19e0f419b0
9085 F20101119_AAAGSE tilghman_m_Page_202thm.jpg
4363bc7d4a193f15e851e060f90e3837
a70b454e7f112b1115b8d90705eb1bbf34172bfd
1650 F20101119_AAAELH tilghman_m_Page_168.txt
47277e8e318ca407b303bb02f1c1ab1b
a64314207fb18cb779d29a9e6c0c8d52029629b5
F20101119_AAAFIB tilghman_m_Page_169.jp2
d0c0542e68a608de67420046f05bcd04
0cbea87c1df06eadd7be425a52e3f52fbdb8fbd8
F20101119_AAAEYT tilghman_m_Page_163.tif
c8cd2d4da57784688a627c0394ff5a93
9e0604eebbe49c468f05b0ce1dcff6c8d1b81f04
103286 F20101119_AAAFVM tilghman_m_Page_046.jpg
514a9d59236c1dad39d09baf5a40cffd
b7d51003bed45f33d344db01f1544b35aa50c61e
7263 F20101119_AAAGSF tilghman_m_Page_204thm.jpg
ae3cddabaca447bbc683424782ed6546
83e26a630981283f5b29972f00f989a2305254dd
8013 F20101119_AAAELI tilghman_m_Page_097thm.jpg
03ed7c35c8943912f5f52dffaaa552e1
eefb35671a6cfb5d3aeb4080d463e0f580e7da25
49717 F20101119_AAAEYU tilghman_m_Page_019.pro
4160ed1e386ab9c25725d3d5f08c0ed5
a7ff31063b0179514ae86583f8c07001eb0c3a8c
102146 F20101119_AAAFVN tilghman_m_Page_048.jpg
7d3e8f5aab90eac1cf3f9de44c9122af
019133592015de2b4ecfdd41e736943e2e8dacb0
8554 F20101119_AAAGSG tilghman_m_Page_205thm.jpg
65202130131b4a0cbf6b6b97e1cc4f75
a6b2506e68f4109d8048b0ac12e6596a194f8650
32845 F20101119_AAAELJ tilghman_m_Page_073.QC.jpg
2e4048b1041e1ddd47aec10f8fcce3d2
cfbf5892d17260b74842b3d32b000fae33bd80ee
107175 F20101119_AAAFIC tilghman_m_Page_208.jp2
50716c792a6b03c3df1cd3555c4f5227
0f23e0de2f11582641530531caa5d9429b104f7f
F20101119_AAAEYV tilghman_m_Page_025.tif
6e52d01b4d0fe355b06e4be41f067b2d
96a23d38a5ed7ed8afdf266867fc47155431835f
103397 F20101119_AAAFVO tilghman_m_Page_057.jpg
1cf8129d7f11507dac379ca715038dac
29d859a05ce8e3a155708707b5006442ab396bc5
37049 F20101119_AAAGSH tilghman_m_Page_205.QC.jpg
fb103d8ee32e074f64f85bc96f24dd4f
3a5609dc078528ad3ee2e6684b10fb44ece5bda5
50301 F20101119_AAAELK tilghman_m_Page_048.pro
66ca28f6a1899208a71acb33fbaaaad0
bdeffa128d380406c469e65682a1056e71dec65e
32792 F20101119_AAAFID tilghman_m_Page_091.QC.jpg
ff3ce86097e4cbe721dd288f52f6dab3
f51af51f29bf38b048590ddad7dc4370d4dc726c
17021 F20101119_AAAEYW tilghman_m_Page_201.QC.jpg
9c8bdea202979e1e6c678f7a7cd536e3
392ed76215891c4034511bc942c1edd3415b5101
112062 F20101119_AAAFVP tilghman_m_Page_058.jpg
79732c46488372578a28f6f5bd7ac304
ee15fa718bed40725e513860123020c7cc5ed481
3805 F20101119_AAAGSI tilghman_m_Page_207thm.jpg
7f01cb116b5eb30dbc9aa36490937e13
0b6cf4b7ba392adcfa870111697f7a8087b537ef
714 F20101119_AAAELL tilghman_m_Page_101.txt
813f2eb71143b0ad6c18c0d6bc0cafac
d7e59b256316a636d91d426d1e06a317fd3f029c
7868 F20101119_AAAFIE tilghman_m_Page_158thm.jpg
092dea43e138b5ff9f5bf3a9d4087458
7a52803bc184e008ecd3fc1c9b36b29840555372
82462 F20101119_AAAEYX tilghman_m_Page_038.jpg
ff3c63e8cfa1fabe4e0a245181562c45
eb8046d9f902d682442ab2a1f2f94e7336d979ab
84666 F20101119_AAAFVQ tilghman_m_Page_062.jpg
548975ad45772e0674d8d91263ebb9bf
58ba21ff5867dcd4e86d9c8a952822fbfb58a190
35781 F20101119_AAAGSJ tilghman_m_Page_208.QC.jpg
31f111ec7231424f69d9fd1e9544c863
52801c40816a33c3b578b8d8f64776f1c8f08f71
34710 F20101119_AAAELM tilghman_m_Page_105.QC.jpg
b8ee3a280fe9839a0fa3f9674c3ae50e
c66e56a517bbc301a879180848ed133e1ad800e0
73699 F20101119_AAAFIF tilghman_m_Page_083.jpg
0197ed5f79920acbefd41979c3202b0f
07b3c8255002575b7c71672717a28007768fee76
F20101119_AAAEYY tilghman_m_Page_065.tif
43245d5952b810517f074059d5690df5
e1c5b1c8b6fa916a5ed971449a9533e5e0b22ae5
142558 F20101119_AAAFVR tilghman_m_Page_063.jpg
7261bde31577062c55433ac906e04ec6
93855880d5965cdf3176884e056dc63a3d61bf55
1873 F20101119_AAAGSK tilghman_m_Page_209thm.jpg
ac8a3f200da4c13612215198a491abea
8635168d7efacf707968f21707b30af90522f769
1328 F20101119_AAAELN tilghman_m_Page_086.txt
51874322ea075b65dff8387e4a3cbcdf
9ca9b7a901efac6e8676f4bfac4a11636e029b3f
111558 F20101119_AAAFIG tilghman_m_Page_159.jp2
04995229819e72af24a3b63e938973db
b08369b1b381232eb9aa914e61e77282bb7a9d45
F20101119_AAAEYZ tilghman_m_Page_165.tif
9d67d9e249c11154ac33b0fe37849c90
c04bb6e9a657435477d328517c31c59d1108ef1f
49953 F20101119_AAAGFA tilghman_m_Page_037.pro
b60bfe32af05962ba7c11f1d3c974fb5
29761b6377d00cd4f318f22e8f09ce7d5d6e1efe
92973 F20101119_AAAFVS tilghman_m_Page_066.jpg
cc01f75c6f525d678e630f08a3505d27
2540510b867e0c7c8cda7d31222b3ab914a2ca39
F20101119_AAAGSL tilghman_m_Page_209.QC.jpg
854be9b8b6ae1199f6f6f68be762860d
0d580a028ed5716a1d65d62371299bac750cf0ad
2003 F20101119_AAAELO tilghman_m_Page_161.txt
bf880a95540824314fc2e5abd9d70c4d
e55f95e5c8fb18378ed821d47aaac0ac7124019a
111723 F20101119_AAAFIH tilghman_m_Page_059.jp2
77cc194a9c256ce4de4a4dbcb8ae9c71
99916bec15210f344f006783f10666258669672a
32966 F20101119_AAAGFB tilghman_m_Page_038.pro
dd07e714237e5afb18c7b3d65cc4c440
53571202eca7f3bac299f066b65170972530b34a
93788 F20101119_AAAFVT tilghman_m_Page_067.jpg
17a9542026c33ac57fffba4ca0d370a6
de24263f43b07a49fdc6c13af0bf4e2bbf26c570
6286 F20101119_AAAGSM tilghman_m_Page_211thm.jpg
84d6c4e7911277e262fea3ce1e07ef0f
24b299f327a3a9328d20d9e3125636232941f4c7
8095 F20101119_AAAELP tilghman_m_Page_037thm.jpg
2a24b870453aef2020e3eff8c0816ab5
6eae09a5eddb8523c65aca70e1add94116a6eca9
F20101119_AAAFII tilghman_m_Page_229.tif
4a765faf6952dbd7f773821055e8f8f0
11219692c6b0a20c1c4ef8f8b6cf74a4c94cedbc
49736 F20101119_AAAGFC tilghman_m_Page_039.pro
3ac1ab8a9ec542382cf2ab38bafed5c3
37290d52a4e346b4d84c7843867803972ad20eb4
103086 F20101119_AAAFVU tilghman_m_Page_069.jpg
a0307ae68edb24219ee54616affe4247
bf30d14760b9f397d0f4a1086736e35295819d4c
27105 F20101119_AAAGSN tilghman_m_Page_211.QC.jpg
b7c8be639e29cf8e8539359423a25c41
dc5a1132557107ed7aa240573c8429ebde58e0f8
1051966 F20101119_AAAELQ tilghman_m_Page_103.jp2
e70c9bf7d8b643a388e3965da2e3d131
9647a40d6639b5eb51a3c4ab89736afc0b58d41b
109480 F20101119_AAAFIJ tilghman_m_Page_094.jp2
c2a311f2677b8c9099007b03e0b9db59
6eda976d075d794a5b3d9b02a487df64f8137194
50346 F20101119_AAAGFD tilghman_m_Page_041.pro
107be184d0dc703bdddd953e2a847a54
45e1d76e02705a434c77afb2c2d84fea9d39ac99
104339 F20101119_AAAFVV tilghman_m_Page_071.jpg
a1bfbd206c2d39dbd79be964c63cb6f3
7b800cb1e17dbc3bd51a11634e59daff3151cf08
20719 F20101119_AAAGSO tilghman_m_Page_216.QC.jpg
7a3a2eeab2f0f976c67cbd9682b1e8f1
6ab7f5cc1fa86b5e3d0a869d0dbcf29512980585
43013 F20101119_AAAELR tilghman_m_Page_023.pro
bfe3e271e72662c97f3c94f1adec2347
99cee8ed7b084a16e70359f6036df73cccc507d2
2021 F20101119_AAAFIK tilghman_m_Page_151.txt
a58b27513161868c76e0f137c5164112
4463113ac75916c9adca32e7d531e6a034a0fe8c
52361 F20101119_AAAGFE tilghman_m_Page_043.pro
04fda4fe4f0299341cecbae04c479e33
330906845a55dad0b638db9067ce8c3297ef1d74
107550 F20101119_AAAFVW tilghman_m_Page_074.jpg
cf0be93cd05e00b856b3432e76fa8de5
542fe3fa83a012f6b18dab0c9a956c70cb8c6ed9
7278 F20101119_AAAGSP tilghman_m_Page_217thm.jpg
38432c1862b2e87d7bc57594c19286d5
7460041ba8bbf474e1151ec5e95a97e3d3227ec0
112150 F20101119_AAAELS tilghman_m_Page_054.jp2
55dc8e526cb44068364fdb2aeb5aa5e8
51e835797d8649bce8605335fa11438c82965439
1535 F20101119_AAAFIL tilghman_m_Page_231thm.jpg
47c4b96596b100518c32af126fd1a62b
30703c209542cd0eb1ed373ed1a112384062188c
48835 F20101119_AAAGFF tilghman_m_Page_045.pro
92f4f1447b9cb7e7442f4e9d4b116096
43d828a94d2090b22b0e1700e617350137b56a33
98965 F20101119_AAAFVX tilghman_m_Page_081.jpg
4e8ea75a4ab91b83cdfe746d2577a058
5783b6174c19dac05b50f308974ad2764abb30b2
7785 F20101119_AAAGSQ tilghman_m_Page_220.QC.jpg
791dfa7337190f90a24cfa470c468e62
59cbf7726653b327bf8c745aa9e7df9abf6bbb07
F20101119_AAAFIM tilghman_m_Page_027.tif
c25f8b0c51eaf4866d051b37a5a98d68
2f277e158da4d9f75ae583eee8d8a24ef2421186
47409 F20101119_AAAGFG tilghman_m_Page_046.pro
7371667c7666a88bbe71db587afa9552
d5e49a8cb4c4c1ca80af946d6287037dd24f7b14
72073 F20101119_AAAFVY tilghman_m_Page_084.jpg
be1477c59d7eeedbbf1f4f057f0b928a
08c4c55fdf22ed954a17c0dd6e42675eeff15a4d
21840 F20101119_AAAGSR tilghman_m_Page_222.QC.jpg
b9180fe490431a9e2b1641c5acce8ece
f58d8ae405f040cdfe007ece7c87cdee185ec0b0
F20101119_AAAELT tilghman_m_Page_081.tif
ca7c2e1323ceb9b621fad2fb7b806cd6
7f729b3ca4a6688135662239b651b1f99de7b384
F20101119_AAAFIN tilghman_m_Page_145.tif
b0821aff34ad4aa223539ea627a714dd
9789bff4796826ae14b7617500a28dfdc461c559
52570 F20101119_AAAGFH tilghman_m_Page_049.pro
97af95f75caa0fa46d76a512108f30cd
3ae4014edd1187a5882900eb3842aef8df0163b2
73579 F20101119_AAAFVZ tilghman_m_Page_086.jpg
e1dbe2d625c8f1bea87b334b747490c1
8b063652703231cd7f6b9ee8697059849a143fdd
2306 F20101119_AAAGSS tilghman_m_Page_223thm.jpg
2f4bb66066e0fb2e988a32517d54ecb1
22db1301bf19228ad05d1ddd4c101b8140a1b3cc
107677 F20101119_AAAELU tilghman_m_Page_145.jp2
037804954fe64a7881a17187a9a5ef4e
a426f3676a794c62275012eb019a74647240e302
101467 F20101119_AAAFIO tilghman_m_Page_019.jpg
a00e00c2450ee8c8c925457250d78707
4830cceb2206e63bbadf51fb83b8a69df848d2b1
50474 F20101119_AAAGFI tilghman_m_Page_051.pro
94ac3b760a76c31c230bc217f69c27c8
26a71523612c880f8fb3dfc7b61737d41c6bb196
5200 F20101119_AAAGST tilghman_m_Page_224thm.jpg
febbcdaa293871b7b3045410aa1f1657
9aabbdbf279093b660acfc401c41b297f160e44c
25557 F20101119_AAAELV tilghman_m_Page_188.jp2
ec3093aff3ca76dd4021354f7ceb1b78
51c52fe98f7f3732d918673ca48b24c2b40f2d33
50009 F20101119_AAAGFJ tilghman_m_Page_052.pro
128ff43e0e37dedb36098ad2f338f938
5425779ad31d687d6ef3bbe2de93691824f0f3a1
21978 F20101119_AAAGSU tilghman_m_Page_224.QC.jpg
d3331b322d61a8140b5ec90771469a74
53b58e2b5536e57930dc1e4af2eb89107b55cc26
103444 F20101119_AAAELW tilghman_m_Page_153.jpg
b735b45560e12fac18f6edd049440a4c
204f49f94ace2b8cb7231023deb3aad3988fde62
3394 F20101119_AAAFIP tilghman_m_Page_112.txt
c3decf9dba8fc512b2c8bceec9646783
d9a235eaeab782231bfbcfaa95276d8491cda661
47597 F20101119_AAAGFK tilghman_m_Page_053.pro
32b640a3b7570e41d1decf56ea711567
1d53c69dca30ffe152a03d2f2e42aa36a3a6b7b7
1979 F20101119_AAAGSV tilghman_m_Page_225thm.jpg
b2934eb93417044969489a6eed286e4d
30c7c3a40cfa62aad649b5e32534d07f8ce7522c
107392 F20101119_AAAELX tilghman_m_Page_120.jp2
9ad3839abfd5f78a69396dff2822dfba
a8e07b306da37c5226f7efc0fc2ccf5be2305971
8091 F20101119_AAAFIQ tilghman_m_Page_069thm.jpg
fe036f81a0f2ea1aae6e8e77f071896b
f3e28c266c2c15d0fd77403d99b8bbd149db5bea
7369 F20101119_AAAGSW tilghman_m_Page_225.QC.jpg
a6c2203e0db1acbda4be150921775a02
112f6eac8e298a1799203a25f47cd247d3e2b302
4947 F20101119_AAAELY tilghman_m_Page_222thm.jpg
55503ed22e084ebc886cc74b0ad7fa06
87f2da7ac4d90c868d21eb686cfd242587b50a72
F20101119_AAAFIR tilghman_m_Page_059.tif
9369f0983bd33fec964af4ae023ac853
f98acbff37d2af2b34d48308deff70cf0f2c7cea
51880 F20101119_AAAGFL tilghman_m_Page_054.pro
f4d6f3517026fcad3b06923ca7b44415
fe9cc2f5a3d4f701a4b82fbe38661387a86336e2
1418 F20101119_AAAGSX tilghman_m_Page_226thm.jpg
64a62271bb0cdd0f08fdc37c971b6068
19af320f317418013414e57eb9f5868af3e2dc3a
31435 F20101119_AAAELZ tilghman_m_Page_104.pro
7b5b8295522cd886b64da8525e64021a
f6ab4ec8517c432ec7514d8013d0ecf27f1d7821
1822 F20101119_AAAFIS tilghman_m_Page_186.txt
d714773d4434f084297ce2660f72692a
b60a7bcf34cd574a878ab16a882212232854f78e
51474 F20101119_AAAGFM tilghman_m_Page_056.pro
595ab1db5042f6d91877a67f759ee135
56b8604cf06c6b1f7ee174515949e02831203134
28844 F20101119_AAAFIT tilghman_m_Page_210.pro
aa71d9fffe2ff12c889b0bda1a0d4c7c
87be160b23da3c45cd22f05ec6477194400f8831
50604 F20101119_AAAGFN tilghman_m_Page_057.pro
c8b3a562776a81e6848836f220865a3c
aab20ccc00fa568de0d5b95bdaa0658e59a8381e
5161 F20101119_AAAGSY tilghman_m_Page_226.QC.jpg
d5a1e6732fb018834509043237402582
562f087da38dccab3caccb16ad00c06e3d2be7bf
1642 F20101119_AAAFIU tilghman_m_Page_022.txt
73bc11c42c94c8973c282c48afaef5ac
d7be71a89c527bb5cc64ae24e567553d7b42749a
60174 F20101119_AAAGFO tilghman_m_Page_058.pro
2eda93aede3116161544f92280028b63
9806ba9071e97338c8c66007a342456faa7c40c2
9331 F20101119_AAAGSZ tilghman_m_Page_228thm.jpg
b63318e5c297245dda91fac3c880c09f
4a2d31b38f0ae559367b4b37e015e74c5c32c01c
F20101119_AAAFIV tilghman_m_Page_183.tif
1978b3752c4f696d0530bff917aa241f
b3209160d7c2f93fa50386204e9b8d90836f8832
73164 F20101119_AAAGFP tilghman_m_Page_063.pro
921be490364ae63d67be3cc86d48c0cd
2b4ebd602e10e7756a53b6ab9b80f1149d06bff6
3715 F20101119_AAAFIW tilghman_m_Page_205.txt
ccc58fe5609efc9a84043d02c42b5f91
25b85e98caf9cf5726c4180fa2af431e25e98c99
50920 F20101119_AAAGFQ tilghman_m_Page_064.pro
0fc8256280a8f7759d0f7e84a7270070
3cdaea3d82a14db003091b033012591115872557
4755 F20101119_AAAFIX tilghman_m_Page_002.jpg
4d8907167fa76a5fefcdc5d63ddd4d49
72f372821ba550a0ce417f770d6f03a0bf9afbac
43823 F20101119_AAAGFR tilghman_m_Page_065.pro
8e7e3aa2164ab0cb0984cc458655cc6a
c2fc92d3d4a48e4cd6305239136be71b65de8202
F20101119_AAAFIY tilghman_m_Page_120.tif
45428d04f654bdaf8bc2670083402815
a375c2abec5a71bf3acb2ae267ef4ad17d9805f7
46211 F20101119_AAAGFS tilghman_m_Page_066.pro
8a92630b780793dc1f8fce455763907f
e19f782872949235c8ce7e899669f33e188b31cd
49668 F20101119_AAAFIZ tilghman_m_Page_128.pro
ccdf21e6cbed9f6bf59198ab0f84c5a8
c0a3f71f9183b768959df56b8ada3cd02ff25508
45349 F20101119_AAAGFT tilghman_m_Page_067.pro
1061489f372a07c10f9e084c2172425f
30892d2240933bc7931cce2092956edb7b320f24
50686 F20101119_AAAGFU tilghman_m_Page_071.pro
067767242c391d79ec080cbc54deb2e4
5ece11eae783be5b36edd9d7eec95f9423430d51
2034 F20101119_AAAERA tilghman_m_Page_025.txt
24376a06b5e00266ceba9d6543ad28d9
d3bbdc7cf19f97a31c452f61dfd5a14b953c811e
51303 F20101119_AAAGFV tilghman_m_Page_072.pro
5036b6831f948455d0215a78c537bff9
6595757d6730cf372b7eda979458a97bf75be756
F20101119_AAAERB tilghman_m_Page_028.tif
6c70f673bbb968bd253cd6867d442ca5
241e974b22ede0b6af8e7bbbfc4c6ac737b15f2d
42376 F20101119_AAAGFW tilghman_m_Page_078.pro
535947be68f48766b80687b5407f96a9
715fb0d469e6a61b4bef541d719837ed504dc125
42835 F20101119_AAAERC tilghman_m_Page_174.QC.jpg
f20ff262e1f13017047ff00345179875
f95ea5220523313a51e1adb2a6858f7a9aa3fa3f
44607 F20101119_AAAGFX tilghman_m_Page_079.pro
445cc9c466858bb54469f9d32751b0c8
641df300e1c1577118502a1ab044e0bc1d1f1ba0
1051935 F20101119_AAAERD tilghman_m_Page_230.jp2
d9d9098ab17ad5ac2307d5ad3625c14c
7f15647ece35319cdf1c26f6237258a611db2763
30809 F20101119_AAAGFY tilghman_m_Page_083.pro
eee09857df4f67500aab2707ecd915e8
96ef99b015592bfa8501b2cdd5f469de1334aa10
1051972 F20101119_AAAERE tilghman_m_Page_228.jp2
b6f4ad38fac9a5e604e68a3f723af104
fd4b6ff68dd305c0e1b88c1ecad5d6177752b6e1
31487 F20101119_AAAGFZ tilghman_m_Page_087.pro
0113886eebaedea787b518aa95c62965
edbee8157ba7bfdc8c4fc987def991782f66e0a0
53123 F20101119_AAAERF tilghman_m_Page_074.pro
46c1f3e9dc4c5e904452f00db94c1cfb
3e4a3131a28a46220ac18b259e069b010c07af0c
100877 F20101119_AAAERG tilghman_m_Page_091.jpg
ec2d5dfe78efca931f6cf61edbd5de9f
23157f9a99a78fbbb5f84e1b65367d0a084533de
40595 F20101119_AAAERH tilghman_m_Page_176.QC.jpg
ec5f478ba4a4708a6fc1b8739e75b2a6
8d00040fd17be7420f8bfa7bdabbc96206f7c114
103 F20101119_AAAFOA tilghman_m_Page_003.txt
2fa6b388e528c088f775f9743ef07395
35a50bffa3b57543e40f43acf016af601f127be4
F20101119_AAAERI tilghman_m_Page_085thm.jpg
e8dcfafbead535de4e9f98ca2b920d3d
05ef3b51244abe8bf85ea74917311b91d515c39f
84308 F20101119_AAAFOB tilghman_m_Page_191.pro
3d673f29acc8a5cf8b5ac91038b47da5
da5a8d7fae495a4262e3ef57424aaa5ebeafaf46
1983 F20101119_AAAERJ tilghman_m_Page_051.txt
8ffcd1fb0ede0e14dc3db0427baee8ee
f90c91ddf8413544a27c00b6b9301956ce359bf2
8266 F20101119_AAAFOC tilghman_m_Page_148thm.jpg
3575cfdcda41b02bbf473577619252db
e7c895570d8845a12d568f7df86372f707e2390b
2065 F20101119_AAAERK tilghman_m_Page_043.txt
8fcb73ce646dc7a8d95d8393cd0c0f80
bf9fa826dd3ebdff3d2dacfd19a994ee4712125f
F20101119_AAAFOD tilghman_m_Page_077.tif
1bd065cd926acf974b8a8f58e06fd1da
f3ca30bac0ebd4e3aa8c68212a24248aa084221d
34852 F20101119_AAAERL tilghman_m_Page_054.QC.jpg
c9ae4805439f04635ca26185900e0844
55aa3d816dd0e65ac5203fc071d8b499676899c0
F20101119_AAAFOE tilghman_m_Page_063.tif
498bc20e09e1e0fed0341cbca15992a7
c56f2364fa3397b14e35bfaaf627a631a5d5038c
33198 F20101119_AAAERM tilghman_m_Page_088.pro
b18b112aedb4fc9e28134fb15f8213fb
e8fda0606632f07495c0dae4ffbee5b1fb167f24
27886 F20101119_AAAFOF tilghman_m_Page_014.QC.jpg
3dbdf3270017ec86ee937f108c91f9df
e2ba1b2216c8ab52090648b944528d95a3cc67a3
F20101119_AAAERN tilghman_m_Page_080.tif
97228c407e54182b83abff39abc27788
cdc182884dbb24a4bb9c00684be136d6c18f1f8d
34090 F20101119_AAAFOG tilghman_m_Page_102.QC.jpg
73fb7a05feec123fefaadb358b6b5de0
148bef20bc34683da728263ef58fc1d16e4788f6
4287 F20101119_AAAGLA tilghman_m_Page_200.txt
ae6c432a3fa15c879b1b06930c87ef19
107329a2cee0b6bfb796f37b6a8b90ceafce3eb0
13621 F20101119_AAAERO tilghman_m_Page_168.QC.jpg
21ca4e09c67d5bf4b221d603448d0aa7
215ca2512603fa321900facd3615c2f7301c6d28
8154 F20101119_AAAFOH tilghman_m_Page_181thm.jpg
384eba86524c8cb4710959f27e6fbd71
dc971641bdf8c91d3d951ce62043b15a73fdb089
906 F20101119_AAAGLB tilghman_m_Page_203.txt
9855e3d1c3db3f28e7474b200455896b
32018768708208bfc12dbe599b1b642f27e222d5
138467 F20101119_AAAERP tilghman_m_Page_228.jpg
175437e138f482a75a23a53023c91536
b63c73c2d016c9c09d812bdef46ad88a3653937b
30095 F20101119_AAAFOI tilghman_m_Page_217.QC.jpg
73df46ac9c02066dc824aede59478d1c
8acf1d63be12f5a53faf81a60efa82abbe4a834c
2863 F20101119_AAAGLC tilghman_m_Page_204.txt
48724ece10b443b83150738dfa422fc5
d9d664fb37a90307a33265135747f3049c8afaf9
7015 F20101119_AAAERQ tilghman_m_Page_117thm.jpg
741f09aa229942a564bd8315148b7031
58698fb9f31e183e30c2f0570b70d1ff7c775126
62650 F20101119_AAAFOJ tilghman_m_Page_210.jpg
6f263f71071dabed1c909e35af346f3c
805316c942120a45219d3f880dca8f51147114a6
3541 F20101119_AAAGLD tilghman_m_Page_208.txt
1c6a323214a7fa9aa54bac5e05cfd6a6
784f39712070c00a74c3e84befb484e3d0f4c74d
106862 F20101119_AAAERR tilghman_m_Page_069.jp2
b509d89b6d1a9a958f181aad8a404188
c5111478a583ad93a5f9a6072b34f3bf3a295248
103027 F20101119_AAAFOK tilghman_m_Page_142.jpg
987715c808034d6c49f776c9587ccc60
f79cf095c295acc16e31b1b0a328f847d2e3a429
F20101119_AAAFBA tilghman_m_Page_045.tif
7d26214b47cf214518ae5938c983c09a
ac5294d11df40b538b8426f9f52fb6d2d9d8ae6a
107185 F20101119_AAAERS tilghman_m_Page_143.jpg
0a7e1691dca96910e26eb83639c3c97f
34f81d1b1cb07509643945e5b385f4eb474f3d6d
8487 F20101119_AAAFOL tilghman_m_Page_089thm.jpg
83a98dc401989f0cfc7d077ae05ce0a8
27dd5b41676849db8d83b28571804b9ed0e89c68
1237 F20101119_AAAGLE tilghman_m_Page_210.txt
fcd1ff7b1ce851d596cd70d187d84704
40c577a7f041e045181fb370945c0f6f0ca73d6d
2471 F20101119_AAAFBB tilghman_m_Page_143.txt
adcaf4ce085b2f326efa46db35db1059
092dadbae146cd554f9ac098d61cb742321085b7
53982 F20101119_AAAERT tilghman_m_Page_129.pro
7f3c899713e56fbabff6d2b831e994fb
93869ca6887ac4d47a06218a30b11410008678b7
79159 F20101119_AAAFOM tilghman_m_Page_183.pro
e7889cb11b5a8c65ef8c2cac06385545
c705a505ce8a7eb72359bbe072d890dd8fa7e41b
1813 F20101119_AAAGLF tilghman_m_Page_212.txt
2b46fecece9134fd0d98040ac6179025
804866cf8f3b1d2fb2315b3fd901adf31a5af66c
8209 F20101119_AAAFBC tilghman_m_Page_021thm.jpg
66c30f45e3ff7562311a922127685999
caf65193b54d35aedf2c74a04f77426b1005bcff
94918 F20101119_AAAERU tilghman_m_Page_152.jpg
f03615dced8f78931837357d2eae7b4d
f5a4d54a626666a84dadb07e20554e1a0f4f99d3
742429 F20101119_AAAFON tilghman_m_Page_109.jp2
f13cc48ae5e25a9e988ba95f22148fde
855881b0e5c28ab4f40cabb823cb3734a5a0da08
2632 F20101119_AAAGLG tilghman_m_Page_218.txt
3a35dc01dd47e83703357f9ba868b1c6
f918f2f95a8810da4ca56ec27569e6fcc3e21e9a
43566 F20101119_AAAFBD tilghman_m_Page_136.pro
3a63c8a7a93c1c7153021d7a5657a888
4a82af9e00fc1265f07acacda02d3309729ab9c6
F20101119_AAAERV tilghman_m_Page_219.tif
dcab5f81ea5d89ae24dae9fb172d3fff
3f99d59a85ae44f91e1a50d843160dfef7bc4c98
2026 F20101119_AAAFOO tilghman_m_Page_142.txt
1d88b0da146bd5925c219389f6b354bf
0c1fa732b1437c1bc087ad9dec3f6ee9cf80d3eb
742 F20101119_AAAGLH tilghman_m_Page_221.txt
a3b1ccdf93dc3b25bfcf8957cf17fb16
184225ef748cbc62d50d610c846c6efaa3d7650c
6377 F20101119_AAAFBE tilghman_m_Page_166thm.jpg
bc450a4c9d02c039aae803d9001972f7
a6b05a50142f93436fb905b07d788df532fe0dbf
103705 F20101119_AAAERW tilghman_m_Page_055.jpg
31ff36ce77a2a0344fa653e256b9f604
3d4040b476e9f9afa9fd7ed8a7e89f33fb914206
7481 F20101119_AAAFOP tilghman_m_Page_075.pro
faf05092098b55e6022f2d7f490821ac
2df2f2ef8d75a76a2ec5787cda530efe0d5b13ba
4775 F20101119_AAAGLI tilghman_m_Page_222.txt
df4ebdcbccc7b44bdcd5f1d605519da7
ff7472949b4dcd84166b5394ce54d0bc673cdf97
F20101119_AAAFBF tilghman_m_Page_178.tif
b1c623dcedd3c50b07e53c9413e35542
0c63638c3d9a93c25614c2ffe9c7d883cfa74b03
105345 F20101119_AAAERX tilghman_m_Page_096.jp2
a6972e3aa7f388999c0814276f80ddcc
9f4ee9ece28728cdaf710405677f1f27035c2c69
26369 F20101119_AAAFOQ tilghman_m_Page_082.QC.jpg
e33b6f100315f7f7e689064af5b0c279
8bcf9023a3e5ff81c8490bc154f088bb42661028
4652 F20101119_AAAGLJ tilghman_m_Page_224.txt
a737309e9ec6f7861f78d28ced2523b2
2aaecdf12f206d84e892c7ae2c5fd2b0287d266f
F20101119_AAAFBG tilghman_m_Page_092.tif
6690bf32106b6a369a8dd9a75e73439e
4203e8d43a7d618dd73fccf5494aa155e59e0de2
107156 F20101119_AAAERY tilghman_m_Page_155.jp2
b3ac00dd183f7c7a6a0633ef3ff6dd75
cab5775238d740c01b1e6c6ad49b575ed1a36d81
95202 F20101119_AAAFOR tilghman_m_Page_157.jpg
5dcb37c8a2cc927598b7eed36180c896
44f93367625d1ef9e4ba2ce5d128b4e8f5348828
417 F20101119_AAAGLK tilghman_m_Page_226.txt
35c21ce2a926a43f1234159bd26a2234
ed6b99851d4e606ad50b3ac2657faff3ec945203
F20101119_AAAFBH tilghman_m_Page_231.tif
807e35e408802055ebcdec419799d0bc
6842b49568355928afd816f4cc90985e8b9a9d66
F20101119_AAAFOS tilghman_m_Page_049thm.jpg
8fa834d4edbf0c18a2b7bb5d914627da
db730d82396e681236cd28e55af84169dbfb109b
281 F20101119_AAAGLL tilghman_m_Page_231.txt
2bb4b05aa3dd6ffc791d5491d55cff7d
fe44c91dfa15e4c52be602ca3bb4b7b9cdea91cd
24433 F20101119_AAAERZ tilghman_m_Page_008.QC.jpg
bc0c1487ae707c186322ce4b4b53ceb5
f60cef4643730f5cf5ccdc6c01ac825a10c4f5b9
F20101119_AAAFOT tilghman_m_Page_217.tif
19367cff12c9b53d2b4356ee7ae52bed
e5d9fd14a75b7abbccfcb7c0e2d3abde18bbd8df
794 F20101119_AAAGLM tilghman_m_Page_232.txt
b5a0ddfcf77fffad48fd4555eccdb951
fd9a2563b2ce3e9012248ff752e9c197eeb7b1f4
133535 F20101119_AAAFBI tilghman_m_Page_183.jpg
11b2eaf901521f57b9eab6090a3874aa
dc16c7e0e99ffa6dfdfbba335a20dacdcdeb8f15
34870 F20101119_AAAFOU tilghman_m_Page_089.QC.jpg
cdcefc14d086c03efc65bfd63c791244
65e9ddc8c04e3b6d4a113469566ab35450ebdcc7
2168 F20101119_AAAGLN tilghman_m_Page_001thm.jpg
27fa4357aad685f4be69a26f1b67dcc1
572fa518024f1a2c9b0d567b80dcd58a6aecb8a4
48763 F20101119_AAAFBJ tilghman_m_Page_060.pro
2ff4808b6fc7006c0f0a215c54f9d417
f30449a0d0faaf6aaa5c76ccc4a1d6768dc6442c
1686 F20101119_AAAGLO tilghman_m_Page_002.QC.jpg
c6e68fccb2d0ee99c827aa9842371d36
1deb5c514195886f18409b1b291c03d9832cd779
F20101119_AAAFBK tilghman_m_Page_098.tif
fa2332c2607b920c9f3f9efade27354b
f70d7cfb9c455b394b71158b30a1fa75f0bcf616
1333 F20101119_AAAFOV tilghman_m_Page_117.txt
10dd77ddb11aaf80eda97494750d2208
052fef0136411761314aa6a56fdea7a67874eb24
524 F20101119_AAAGLP tilghman_m_Page_003thm.jpg
aae774fb8fe0fdf0860e4dca75a1a561
d4bf11451dc5bda5b0ef1cac05d6711907e7358a
85248 F20101119_AAAFBL tilghman_m_Page_076.jpg
f89f572f300eaf41371d9b2f95580f5c
10a70b24cbbd45c22fe795130f8eefe0d6d96756
34613 F20101119_AAAFOW tilghman_m_Page_181.QC.jpg
4469e14221f376240c9dd08d4bde2072
fb4e06a4c75c87d3b6c0f360cbd768c8e93fca91
3901 F20101119_AAAGLQ tilghman_m_Page_004thm.jpg
659535b3c8293b9fe8f5a1742a98ca55
bfe1458be5588444e96db9bf826e2ba09d8a422c
9102 F20101119_AAAFBM tilghman_m_Page_206thm.jpg
356f55d221b6f598ef12a7896609bcbb
be34f66f76bc905dd4a15608d6435493a330a534
6578 F20101119_AAAFOX tilghman_m_Page_006thm.jpg
5de119daf82f39cb5d340fa7fca7297c
c0dc0ce0c662f2b48c1e33e2209391943e953040
5648 F20101119_AAAFBN tilghman_m_Page_212thm.jpg
6ee112a48f8f26297cee099d32e3c19f
2de244da2ed0d57f54220811788f298ca9d4c2f0
109041 F20101119_AAAFOY tilghman_m_Page_148.jp2
0ec1a7653475e5e877272358f1f4a26b
003ee141099b1f5cf22c005688209023dd4639ef
14239 F20101119_AAAGLR tilghman_m_Page_004.QC.jpg
d5c9bdfb4f7d1cb933d43553f9975dc5
fd10f831e964f581bd14cb6bfaeda101fff836c5
106691 F20101119_AAAFBO tilghman_m_Page_227.jpg
5ea5749a4b1c6100c458bc182f254646
60f6f11eb8be3bfe0e08b61a0d6dff805b8226ae
2682 F20101119_AAAFOZ tilghman_m_Page_219.txt
8d75b563267a28c211d88fa77a2d756a
05dda790100f491e0f0ea1b31731a8dab837d0ac
22256 F20101119_AAAGLS tilghman_m_Page_005.QC.jpg
94e015dc8ce615809ec3a74b3ebd640b
f6167f39a735b1ede61a26c9192ff750ff83ddd7
1634 F20101119_AAAFBP tilghman_m_Page_215.txt
17d333f8b734fe2b2dd12efd21c01d82
4a57d1fea40d906d345394f8e50df7d0963267b7
28290 F20101119_AAAGLT tilghman_m_Page_006.QC.jpg
8408ca6fe019a49f2b491f91d16b41f7
1c286bfa826cf366b17f80fd5913a73949495939
102977 F20101119_AAAEXA tilghman_m_Page_072.jpg
f13ee04cc7ef9f13000ca82df6bdcff8
d3136a1be9bb86446614d3d2e18ab4f30f404297
99520 F20101119_AAAFBQ tilghman_m_Page_150.jpg
6856b1b7e381111ecbb7aa438de8ee78
8498d1ad44562034b96aea5dd0cd07c1941d0514
27467 F20101119_AAAGLU tilghman_m_Page_009.QC.jpg
8c8a42c186e2a629a5db5dbe6094f621
30d81586c8faceffbdde33e0fc2836774f2b7a49
84526 F20101119_AAAEXB tilghman_m_Page_211.jp2
78a9702b43689c97504c24fc115a9ffd
196412383273aa2719fe3658bd30c2560c4a435b
1651 F20101119_AAAFBR tilghman_m_Page_131.txt
24137d767b7f049e857f9823cbf00cbb
87abebd69599cda900fb8466655357e69fac4470
23176 F20101119_AAAGLV tilghman_m_Page_016.QC.jpg
f2fe1ac6e8d1dd398256b91879999edf
78ab6d69df7b141386a64370a6f7dba240024920
51913 F20101119_AAAEXC tilghman_m_Page_102.pro
bbb4ba92be22387d239fa72ffefe761b
b2970506ae64484642dd4566542d10a213b58ab0
105611 F20101119_AAAFBS tilghman_m_Page_054.jpg
9e8f17853b67c724f6f30758d7746829
a91f77e94b9b57546669fb741be5dc14db14b128
6611 F20101119_AAAGLW tilghman_m_Page_018thm.jpg
307ab9dbadff0cf1c36deb9c9caf73de
7b482891970185e203b75726e1693c59f50d3343
105507 F20101119_AAAEXD tilghman_m_Page_073.jp2
63dede51b605c1cb2fb459b1ac976893
ea675797797cbd6a12382660c22d6ab69010518e
F20101119_AAAFBT tilghman_m_Page_124.tif
10da76fa5809ae4aa9310db2c30b8cf3
d2e78b00b22c40672e18b672c9187783e8c17247
26746 F20101119_AAAGLX tilghman_m_Page_018.QC.jpg
192ba8b304d2d76f2bfb0364345d6c8b
082023785bdc38e823e7d1c715c14824bfb2158c
47610 F20101119_AAAEXE tilghman_m_Page_031.pro
dafe858c9045b25fb1c1a62a61a09ba3
a968e7e4a10279241ee0c28b358a8efdc392866c
1826 F20101119_AAAFBU tilghman_m_Page_197.txt
f85e52016e387c09624b74c33b279e47
1eaa47d0785bcb11a4353af63423cd47134bebd1
7914 F20101119_AAAGLY tilghman_m_Page_020thm.jpg
c2cf6c3b5c601b260ceb18056219cf98
d65a0f480a21d94f280be1c312adc0b0a25d9c0e
2735 F20101119_AAAEXF tilghman_m_Page_015.txt
a008acc33d7a2d829614db468e988a57
ab4b3310a8e30c55e22483a18c99e3d58be95bf2
32516 F20101119_AAAFBV tilghman_m_Page_103.QC.jpg
42950c45c2b9b96a7a93b19f40aec207
081fec4c5510e87deb87078f5edb9045cf3ad6d8
32402 F20101119_AAAGLZ tilghman_m_Page_021.QC.jpg
cb9389a222d8be710286e5107abed746
4f5122835d87d35107281ffb2922a74fc919b043
2431 F20101119_AAAEXG tilghman_m_Page_108.txt
689d2c7ae1615d0823bca657b09adfea
c430690e42607cc8425aca84525b6bf139312980
F20101119_AAAFBW tilghman_m_Page_164.tif
7b740595ca6b4a933784eb464d0dc995
e8b4a0b59f7be64fde8c93400f5cadf0ad0d5a39
43793 F20101119_AAAEXH tilghman_m_Page_017.jpg
97c12bd461913dde0a3a01da082dbb3a
c5efb26374a5fc8a331d867fa9c4a2e4dcfe7b36
2305 F20101119_AAAFBX tilghman_m_Page_199.txt
331bf8fa38cd7361e1986c43e072f1f9
8703afd6dbada04fc67ef047d5d68531497b44c5
97799 F20101119_AAAFUA tilghman_m_Page_052.jpg
d70408e3ff0b724937a5d2a32ba29344
a55ebbccf05db38faf4d0cdd771022dce546eb1f
51664 F20101119_AAAEXI tilghman_m_Page_147.pro
f9524a064a6cb1d692c7b4ae0d7e0cd4
b40aff5b32a37184cfc6f50186846d16c05a272c
106152 F20101119_AAAFBY tilghman_m_Page_027.jp2
9ede8084bc563e86197dcd455ed4aa6e
07f8caaa32c346ead5929a37f19484b94cb09e23
3187 F20101119_AAAFUB tilghman_m_Page_221thm.jpg
f9899dd636057781274793f4ceefbd5d
cd97f465e4ba9dbd30322156a77cea517585b006
1024 F20101119_AAAEXJ tilghman_m_Page_107.txt
840e84abe55282e6bb6f16b33eb82a5d
09e26bdb3527187eeab893bf84737fe52095bb10
F20101119_AAAFBZ tilghman_m_Page_086.tif
5e2daaff7b2c43e15bf5fb623c63fd87
f321eaf7160b4fa361f2350c836879c697d720cf
F20101119_AAAFUC tilghman_m_Page_107.tif
d840b9fa83818ece9bea4a849598f2fe
cf1c95d4e00b93ecd6c081ad69ed4f423e469f39
62472 F20101119_AAAEXK tilghman_m_Page_014.pro
f4472636bb75273189bc424e5d3771a7
e1f7c0eccb8d2f91a03826808c4f4956a29a6cdf
1668 F20101119_AAAFUD tilghman_m_Page_103.txt
a2669dd8bdbe8c4142679e34f9ce530b
5d6f3949192fb2cdbfbbf91ffa9125517b23a916
3171 F20101119_AAAEXL tilghman_m_Page_156.QC.jpg
c84a53e952dbfc7e9432d2ac746e7351
8a963f84211d8ad745e4f7205de0a2cd12328429
133972 F20101119_AAAFUE tilghman_m_Page_200.jp2
3594a6155fb055732728b9f90ee1113e
03ef5931881f68e4230cf9ed3da5644405f84900
48074 F20101119_AAAEKA tilghman_m_Page_227.pro
7d44bff190d188213ae56cd66f829304
9b348f40270dfb6d88f808ec7f3362e10499c321
F20101119_AAAEXM tilghman_m_Page_116.tif
3e19b7b11790124894fa0e25dd8cda0e
c32f0e4c8d11f1680709fe37b7a5d2342649d431
2132 F20101119_AAAFUF tilghman_m_Page_060.txt
6edc810bcb5a7c22d3a696edb560fbda
ad7f921153e222c15229a278ac1cfbfd3200f026
51836 F20101119_AAAEKB tilghman_m_Page_149.pro
13ebf83bc829ae3f5b2c0acf99d7ca1e
1f73c460a4060bd2dc7fe1dead88f4a8ca4b09ee
2499 F20101119_AAAEXN tilghman_m_Page_129.txt
a455b3f682bc91364480306bca281266
0c6f8d23e6216fa355429d786d0f2a191194cbbe
53749 F20101119_AAAFUG tilghman_m_Page_135.jpg
d225eb4c03f60e8ee653e19e95849012
194b6278847a99464e7a678886a449a190a8c455
68025 F20101119_AAAEKC tilghman_m_Page_192.jpg
317dd3a68a11375b7580b5fba14324f2
01ec237216ea08d8cdfd9e58ce3c17595a639fbc
26921 F20101119_AAAEXO tilghman_m_Page_062.QC.jpg
c2bf2514039586118c8ed7fd1f1f1c02
b4beb032455ece07181043d27b53ea726b96900f
100983 F20101119_AAAFUH tilghman_m_Page_093.jpg
8924c98bf4940d40bc9621f07ad4d5bc
ffded26f98df3a255eeb0cb61facc14192ef7c99
8836 F20101119_AAAGRA tilghman_m_Page_164thm.jpg
0ce3871a8dc0f6ed9d58f84b00d0496c
dc5a45c29401597e100d2fec83080650a94f8ace
28140 F20101119_AAAEKD tilghman_m_Page_065.QC.jpg
8baa41022a5c20caf1c6f3afed00bd64
7528b6e3456fa146a74903868702a998d75c8639
F20101119_AAAEXP tilghman_m_Page_205.tif
a83339854fbf178e345ae752b48d3b34
96ba14a2b6f92391fe5786e612848eebb14f7f98
54634 F20101119_AAAFUI tilghman_m_Page_113.pro
2d9e38e3ba2f66779f162f4ae2f4a0ef
ab6e6e5878ab72da7b8d57bc45393955d292f928
1987 F20101119_AAAGRB tilghman_m_Page_165thm.jpg
5d3e8c50271f92a251867b848f3e763a
4be3db03cc0156d877ca9b4675f4d97b60e98383
57106 F20101119_AAAEKE tilghman_m_Page_215.jp2
1fc364f5d7a0c68546354b6815fafe9f
52567f3bff01e454bac52c4efc399a8aa3893fc4
7800 F20101119_AAAEXQ tilghman_m_Page_177.QC.jpg
c77093b528834f1ae6e7f369761a7d5c
c64a55b20c07953cb6f0254804abc67c4866f4d9
2873 F20101119_AAAFUJ tilghman_m_Page_217.txt
78829b980ee716b51eaf7371ad1a33e3
a54a8a9f18a525a3c2adea4040ca217fbafdac59
38477 F20101119_AAAGRC tilghman_m_Page_167.QC.jpg
23a44f66c06d6726373d3a7faadf62ea
f426a3c9ce62b16f90e4eb6a9b8fe7488202f133
126411 F20101119_AAAEKF tilghman_m_Page_122.jp2
ff9fd2ab3cea1f69c42a0fdbe5be1dc5
5215dbddde99de95a13a9051a84366629b708b43
100512 F20101119_AAAEXR tilghman_m_Page_014.jpg
013ec202873547591047349e145d9c98
2491a81750b307e1f392a2e464c7b355cfeebd8b
1909 F20101119_AAAFUK tilghman_m_Page_092.txt
17c08d82419d7f6d4a8a41fc25f90507
e80b0b84b12b2d8eb55858bf758d5a3eb75c3865
3592 F20101119_AAAGRD tilghman_m_Page_168thm.jpg
7129a8c23195981d123dfe6b9e3c7926
757fe41b03de901233dce9851d40524f3b6bef1a
1819 F20101119_AAAEKG tilghman_m_Page_075thm.jpg
9ed8138aaaa8886d1d62cac3d3ee068f
139732f4b89e7f02c09148b28a80635c7c391e8d
F20101119_AAAFHA tilghman_m_Page_171.tif
43f861223823ab5002c4c3b744710bd6
0dde368ac5bb6bceb40fc695fce3937d910e91eb
29750 F20101119_AAAEXS tilghman_m_Page_173.pro
fc56c01f26707ad1379500955cee9e66
1e96f2705571d388be3c942d73185b217434c809
77432 F20101119_AAAFUL tilghman_m_Page_036.jpg
77ae005672312c6c4f7a197b2663c177
8ce0f18ece80a0ed0f918fe34de5c15c9e86a771
6084 F20101119_AAAGRE tilghman_m_Page_171thm.jpg
83233d96d9dfe6d02b14ff6208eb360f
41e135b8afdd540c1b5c803f882d5665883c58d3
8610 F20101119_AAAEKH tilghman_m_Page_170thm.jpg
bad5d5f8bf9fd167b8d68e7b5a5d86ad
3a95dae2f450137002db021cc1586d446d3c92e8
28650 F20101119_AAAFHB tilghman_m_Page_178.QC.jpg
0830938bfd8066f835f4b7fa3184304f
f092f511a5bee42cbc624e7883ef6606eefcd8dd
57600 F20101119_AAAEXT tilghman_m_Page_100.pro
106bb85e2b5a720fbd88ca9df9283bde
9f0d74b96b2231780ad345e739563a3c6946a1b8
14104 F20101119_AAAFUM tilghman_m_Page_207.QC.jpg
30fbf93c494e3929a97693bcebbe1f4f
1e4f2dd2dca1ac9a2f345b56e0ae655845c9a813
4268 F20101119_AAAGRF tilghman_m_Page_173thm.jpg
3bde2172bf1aee0f5f4c84a0edbdbdc2
9f4398cab15aad05dfac50e9877dab4f5df0f1b7
48681 F20101119_AAAEKI tilghman_m_Page_073.pro
532f06ad7ba7d77c93d6f5e526c8afba
02602c97a36af9f385166f6f24e08d7c105cba81
F20101119_AAAFHC tilghman_m_Page_196.tif
cc23679d2a210d607ea3b5b2156653ea
7cfbf337df2e75865f466bb1f7b85cc31d38ac2a
F20101119_AAAEXU tilghman_m_Page_008.jp2
8b79b543f7a1f50c0d178006ef300a96
a3643946d282787a7eb849b30aba4b59138dcde8
2716 F20101119_AAAFUN tilghman_m_Page_169.txt
795082c1cfe9ce26ec9cb23f8e3dfb08
55c9d9036f326d5be4670fb905e251e00630b41b
16053 F20101119_AAAGRG tilghman_m_Page_173.QC.jpg
960b57830d8a3bb3d3fa89168eaacf29
b3226cb5d1455671132d7682e624d3ca53858ed4
7633 F20101119_AAAEKJ tilghman_m_Page_027thm.jpg
9f64c3b4c62fbbdafaa88708bd2171ca
93a472289519a50e5d3a68e6dcc98b3f239cc4e1
3417 F20101119_AAAFHD tilghman_m_Page_005.txt
46ce409d60d05f59f4bf35177d56cc12
6681792add96f4677e0c75793b54c3ca83819910
37711 F20101119_AAAEXV tilghman_m_Page_034.pro
b2aa23e502f7c0354acabeadea07a68d
64deb8be397b6acfac204167b7457d06769476c5
94972 F20101119_AAAFUO tilghman_m_Page_078.jpg
591004b0c0818a32a12ab2edd4fb44e5
186bd2ab63033b7b381b2092a753ae81ef9ca811
9587 F20101119_AAAGRH tilghman_m_Page_174thm.jpg
f9d4fb3d6c4ab48f73bf06ae73f65521
8fda202675c7d01f39b559ff19103fa46980c827
20381 F20101119_AAAEKK tilghman_m_Page_210.QC.jpg
e9222c80ddbde2102cc0fdbfbf2056c5
0df8d35d1dc3354a86a03c8b9af903b0f4f35878
8432 F20101119_AAAFHE tilghman_m_Page_147thm.jpg
33831a5f92da8d4c8b02f17e6689c115
7ed4d78865ed5e4333a608b375d9fc2fac632615
40368 F20101119_AAAEXW tilghman_m_Page_207.jp2
c2a3ee282886b18ab35f3b872f073232
a547d3ac102a65e421f72836c838fc590feaa78e
347993 F20101119_AAAFUP UFE0014121_00001.xml
0789273c4caf5852afaaf2adfcb34d90
aaf8127cd2812c73d03141209b7acdf66c485c49
2166 F20101119_AAAGRI tilghman_m_Page_177thm.jpg
df082a0cb2a1f7bff2821ef34b167463
71bf09978fecd79c2320bd63596171d3d31ba557
99075 F20101119_AAAEKL tilghman_m_Page_110.jpg
b357613aa394df0cce68334ae50149ac
4a08c9f5f5e2c2c043e79c954f9a2ff4bc3e81a5
649 F20101119_AAAFHF tilghman_m_Page_002thm.jpg
95387e132997dbe5ff64ede801ad4e4d
add0dbd181f963a4ae98dcd7eb18b8807a099245
41424 F20101119_AAAEXX tilghman_m_Page_133.pro
7cb8c5495177efaf1f50a67b05819c8b
517a5f4dc7add2361aa883cac807ff2a6f439712
6817 F20101119_AAAGRJ tilghman_m_Page_178thm.jpg
363998d91bc245185dd99555464f6c8e
3628cedcd299ad3cb3ee751f8595f8b74425dc37
13372 F20101119_AAAEKM tilghman_m_Page_013.QC.jpg
888eceff3f0404436a0fc4f658068089
1294621ad8d27de8f1cd12abeca685e16cb317d9
40972 F20101119_AAAFHG tilghman_m_Page_018.pro
2750249c4307cfabc502123ec0e44a4e
480083a287ef40cdcc48b39caa1aa5bc2ed52519
120613 F20101119_AAAEXY tilghman_m_Page_100.jpg
f2e898af0c4d449fb7ed39117fafff91
380f59fb0649f87562320b11638ef85d370c9d2e
9523 F20101119_AAAGRK tilghman_m_Page_179thm.jpg
a14a6dbe6c83c183faf568debf9ee571
e3d274ee925c8147bf07792c5db078248fc0396d
2764 F20101119_AAAEKN tilghman_m_Page_203thm.jpg
c2ffb4cb5c4787808a34e43e16e95036
d580fa6b1b3f073a61bff4e800e646efaab10519
8677 F20101119_AAAFHH tilghman_m_Page_056thm.jpg
84b31115058aee734ed9220fa340aa30
2d70d98041ed37b84d730ffdfc709313d9fc84e9
1376 F20101119_AAAEXZ tilghman_m_Page_109.txt
0a1b363f9f2e039ce555a3c61c91b1b0
ce76732e2956e0790fbef8e4d5a4dda1638b16d9
F20101119_AAAGEA tilghman_m_Page_200.tif
d35b82c443412e4de0adc62cec85552f
f918e35a6c8ddf2219a984cdbed15f43091bb094
98614 F20101119_AAAFUS tilghman_m_Page_005.jpg
24e92459c731f66a75a43fbcfc02293b
d15c8aa164d053b79d361dd358771e9b9dcde0fc
2011 F20101119_AAAGRL tilghman_m_Page_182thm.jpg
1683689118c9066ff93451d7edb72e4a
fa57927cd378a1adbd3716020bc36a87a2e9fadd
7134 F20101119_AAAEKO tilghman_m_Page_067thm.jpg
7b61b5de869a0cbfd0a67f5136eb2738
c89655a354d72308b6c7f2f5a2dcf4b96bc52c93
933928 F20101119_AAAFHI tilghman_m_Page_116.jp2
af2e9548686058615e7109a62c51097a
8ee429253a37b874e07da728c602e42efc390224
F20101119_AAAGEB tilghman_m_Page_204.tif
59670b992a8e3294e45c56432b1f58dd
fd5c7e99702786e2356c16ad0b5614ffedf217e5
104953 F20101119_AAAFUT tilghman_m_Page_008.jpg
6a26805dbddbfbd17ded4fac9d77e10b
ab47b42123ce3f90e3437c64a353f42020b7d9c7
4718 F20101119_AAAGRM tilghman_m_Page_186thm.jpg
6aa8c1f492d9919eead3dfd3b1facf9c
b4a88492b9eac64c21676eb2854da38f7ee5898b
F20101119_AAAEKP tilghman_m_Page_138.tif
99fa67af9fe52c933f6b8b2607da0475
f0f9c73228650a3ef3e9f20f3fca5cac567fd412
59232 F20101119_AAAFHJ tilghman_m_Page_122.pro
413eec0f5964f41e82641efd9fa36440
e4320d8e78bf4c0a7c1960160f28ff1fca8f31cd
F20101119_AAAGEC tilghman_m_Page_206.tif
c781556e746e783cbbe2c6a46b82cca2
dc8414138076b2ab759d2b06e7fbec77f33ae76a
99281 F20101119_AAAFUU tilghman_m_Page_009.jpg
988c14e2cb709a39f3eb038c4017a351
4042d4223bc97326f88b3a173975745cfbd7a452
17899 F20101119_AAAGRN tilghman_m_Page_186.QC.jpg
73fed6be08ee49a2c7b3d77d354bda34
ccc90ab03a0a6727ed71310ab82096cba0e4d410
1051938 F20101119_AAAEKQ tilghman_m_Page_229.jp2
644c159c7bcab4c0d8184bf0ff47589d
b9eab953236318822854fee67733ec004a7e8765
2472 F20101119_AAAFHK tilghman_m_Page_014.txt
955b6b2316ea3b7e19f929fddf17dd68
43918600cc99ded37c1546f9388df193894c44a6
F20101119_AAAGED tilghman_m_Page_210.tif
d0b8475b6b034a47f12927b47a1ef729
4d18785860229de7c6b9eff75a1c3f9c8af429cb
135707 F20101119_AAAFUV tilghman_m_Page_011.jpg
8fa3885977f1d6b265ea499a14b2b173
4a924d3e59a58762ffd8d510786f3a84ee4755ef
8431 F20101119_AAAGRO tilghman_m_Page_187thm.jpg
8473e859d60da2e0d04681616158171b
888c7927dbe9e4b6e73324c7d6c5366e4d9ae451
103595 F20101119_AAAEKR tilghman_m_Page_070.jpg
04803ae579bd23e4298f32f59ad6c81a
5953135840959971cbfaa3930530fe005dcb8a1c
50000 F20101119_AAAFHL tilghman_m_Page_161.pro
c3c15f709ad884c54d503b02b5b7af90
37632be8d0dfa4400a723f86fe58d18ad5bbc61d
F20101119_AAAGEE tilghman_m_Page_211.tif
5b613c0c1b60a32eaf510b990f46826e
16597bf50c7e59224852188cc6b9ceb0481a0b53
125652 F20101119_AAAFUW tilghman_m_Page_015.jpg
ce269169022070e1f199577251f9e68d
ca48a4a9a4eaa6a67d1d4740c059d95d62346d9c
2519 F20101119_AAAGRP tilghman_m_Page_188thm.jpg
c9f4e65ac445c1450fdc9300cbb63d8c
e41452642a611432be88c7b2a9f66c885a4305c3
26798 F20101119_AAAFHM tilghman_m_Page_199.QC.jpg
2422f58e415ea7411431818241e20594
200811a07aab6d17434ba198e5062c57e427287c
F20101119_AAAGEF tilghman_m_Page_213.tif
d45b1e8d399325c6a548797ccd8e65bf
c477a544d4982a32a9f24178a3472fecef29feb7
84972 F20101119_AAAFUX tilghman_m_Page_018.jpg
5801d17e993c57f2dc4cfe23da69f4fb
b3cfa5f41f6fe158957652118e67a54aba6f24dd
9010 F20101119_AAAGRQ tilghman_m_Page_188.QC.jpg
c9f505d976ed23accf1a518fc05d5eef
37f4dcd24c75d135c8af4150934fbd2bbee4cdbe
46045 F20101119_AAAEKS tilghman_m_Page_198.pro
5c30a278648161ad13c139d99fd285ce
b925bea22bb0d4857ac8933672b43a7904d60c07
F20101119_AAAFHN tilghman_m_Page_101.tif
7ca1a26223c23cc83d26c2e6767d28ba
1b25b5e012ffe29c4ec7218582ed3edbd66c76ac
F20101119_AAAGEG tilghman_m_Page_215.tif
ecc175c66c1fd6e729bf564ac5b1ea12
91a6ebe06c96e3d9a4784eafcd18b5f2dc36bbdd
99526 F20101119_AAAFUY tilghman_m_Page_021.jpg
4782cd22bfbe098473ef748d572e45a7
f944d8ee1b097815cf778c0f834d6fa4d3ff2f7b
8933 F20101119_AAAGRR tilghman_m_Page_189thm.jpg
bfdcad5dbc90eccc820654e4fb15b6c5
3354569176b20af15d51d88dfc0c7d7aef4fc760
148738 F20101119_AAAEKT tilghman_m_Page_185.jpg
e62c29d8198f81968b3f705c4687eda5
c85691e3f9a34947c3139820db4fb0968cec7874
F20101119_AAAGEH tilghman_m_Page_218.tif
07d72f79991c161d5d73e78e29c570d0
2d265ac3acc934aecf1a01e3390f681f8139278b
102016 F20101119_AAAFUZ tilghman_m_Page_026.jpg
a2aec034e3fc08af6d53ed52a1f9589d
638b5c9fdae60adf574a01dc24c20b4b1bfc8975
38734 F20101119_AAAGRS tilghman_m_Page_189.QC.jpg
30131eb7f188e2464ce85a57390e07ab
a8dc224bccecbdc704954c381ac5c6360219fb80
134034 F20101119_AAAEKU tilghman_m_Page_010.jpg
851ea92fab16956ffd43f41f7b1dfb88
161d89d7601c94145f09260e3d9d298a441250b9
F20101119_AAAGEI tilghman_m_Page_223.tif
721d89c27fe1ba2a76b64246ce2cfdad
f02fede11fbda044e6896b466fed958ddbb82815
20180 F20101119_AAAGRT tilghman_m_Page_190.QC.jpg
96f83ed39b44ef99a8daeabaa65cb43d
3d6cb330834c5148f0cb561fd9cd68a7f8423679
97350 F20101119_AAAEKV tilghman_m_Page_211.jpg
d17f7303b104c9dc64b45e020048970f
c78f3ad09286372afd84afa33c1e1e93420f9904
F20101119_AAAFHO tilghman_m_Page_146.tif
1867efc2779fa0e47aba58b7fd349270
278f05217cbf35bac6205ced6e39fedb756d597f
F20101119_AAAGEJ tilghman_m_Page_224.tif
d1442165d0861d30a873cdbaddacb8be
7bdee228405d9745f18fef48a8cefd06e0aa3956
9823 F20101119_AAAGRU tilghman_m_Page_191thm.jpg
66824931eb8758e909ad291d1aaec652
ebcb0f06f926c0c890f892f2dc03c8a459a4b0dc
116901 F20101119_AAAEKW tilghman_m_Page_218.jpg
a56e47a1aca3e7518836687e3772fe91
24cfca3966d58b31e4cac34cf84c70e771d0c3a2
32589 F20101119_AAAFHP tilghman_m_Page_039.QC.jpg
9799c054be607b41c34f4ba8236eb1fa
235dc379d853857e0ab74715abf63303febeb42d
41152 F20101119_AAAGRV tilghman_m_Page_191.QC.jpg
1e2ad3530891005d461a9c6073ad997b
bf30846999a5c9913091b0062643894701afdc64
87195 F20101119_AAAEKX tilghman_m_Page_195.jp2
97f312d154328e26b8d44df866265e3b
0b8aaf67a9c2f96c62e2d213321ae1f6b7e18423
F20101119_AAAFHQ tilghman_m_Page_021.txt
a3c17d7e0ff533b6fb686a4be901cd5e
db7e7fdd2c2cf88f5ff910c4e8c24bdfcb912156
F20101119_AAAGEK tilghman_m_Page_225.tif
ce5f4888676f5715279f302861f861b7
4522ef962d26c1f031312068d47d60c7cd70f7bc
5225 F20101119_AAAGRW tilghman_m_Page_192thm.jpg
bb2a0915934ea744e9cd7bc3930bb90c
9fa0725a993910052959e4f81d05c94e3bf6b29b
1051961 F20101119_AAAEKY tilghman_m_Page_227.jp2
a0f268bd8f2d29f32f49b08b7032be6d
d76562e15956560142afafc44aba62e128df3a92
9408 F20101119_AAAFHR tilghman_m_Page_012thm.jpg
1bc28c8ed0a12a6889ef6fe7b314972b
98bfa76aff3ebf8a54b7485f154bf761577674cf
F20101119_AAAGEL tilghman_m_Page_226.tif
a9c058fefb393d7210e1855de9d3e7e0
b6a7a8edaeac9c94fc54de78251fb2ff82b52d66
1897 F20101119_AAAEKZ tilghman_m_Page_158.txt
5df8d4d3532c5e239c421a5d3827e803
36c90d0a87c34ee36d49b1927343b8bb72bef048
105556 F20101119_AAAFHS tilghman_m_Page_077.jpg
9d7b570a5b6bd7661033729486e4e1a2
997a4bb390e757d6029754833653df0a16d4900e
F20101119_AAAGEM tilghman_m_Page_228.tif
7ae8ebac577ffc81e5c6079dbd383ce0
182642fee1c5518cdedc25d7be75bfe2d0ffdc0a
20462 F20101119_AAAGRX tilghman_m_Page_192.QC.jpg
5d2e2a0f79ceb8f71924228d5d985c21
4d26ccd08b63d6d1eb0ac3f52973f2d99aac5b07
101395 F20101119_AAAFHT tilghman_m_Page_158.jp2
6f05b9ef9282f92167bfc10cc4dd67ba
e85b00079cb9a70fd5d68fba71ce0e2889d8fbc9
F20101119_AAAGEN tilghman_m_Page_230.tif
5f81d12d450fd4f2ab180eb66d5e0fcb
c50efc5ddf70d213438520eec725bdf282f426ce
8917 F20101119_AAAGRY tilghman_m_Page_193thm.jpg
a48a4b6f33efc162ab734f9c4d05b067
58dbdd9b7cc72a6d01c64d83b2aadcd854e3d765
21419 F20101119_AAAFHU tilghman_m_Page_107.pro
14a4ebfda71e9ecf1e5572cc64937253
aaed842f4f53c8dbbdd99d61427ac6c3b20eab2b
F20101119_AAAGEO tilghman_m_Page_232.tif
9f0f8346ffa5eb557a75db91beefaf70
73041e152c624320130ce57ae37eb81ef120634d
2655 F20101119_AAAGRZ tilghman_m_Page_194thm.jpg
bdc3b3d326bd83c3f1cc76a2191e0326
f7cc12a73321b2a8000b39038a6f03d06a508ac0
32050 F20101119_AAAFHV tilghman_m_Page_219.QC.jpg
91c3455265927fccfb82d00db7dd6c3e
89f6cb43b5e28e5ce36b05d34ad12c83e72bea4f
81784 F20101119_AAAGEP tilghman_m_Page_005.pro
e16c0b05d81092a6391e2429c51c0e0f
2827c20d267d3e0a4703287f3fca4ad192ecd6ef
2061 F20101119_AAAFHW tilghman_m_Page_078.txt
28b04f118b7c23680aa891608fec5e26
1ad18e97fd8e3be2a50f5ac791175c97be0d7846
111826 F20101119_AAAGEQ tilghman_m_Page_006.pro
2e13e1b18ab5d66fdb7106e3808438e6
780d71fc8d1d8f00b81880f7da515decde2ea9b3
2004 F20101119_AAAFHX tilghman_m_Page_089.txt
7cbcc0ff341d5b976ed12fa4559cc1fc
a6f84eb5135470cdbc33c78d8ad9a33786ec234b
73436 F20101119_AAAGER tilghman_m_Page_010.pro
851e0682380a6add0e01224c09d2af6a
472b92f57eafa73761812a9521569b230e02d95f
95379 F20101119_AAAFHY tilghman_m_Page_136.jp2
9e652672738b68b28aaf6885cb4fcc24
bafe093319b87dc0f7e61115df398154b5cc5681
18782 F20101119_AAAGES tilghman_m_Page_013.pro
2d63fb277deb4da8d681fd76a6e4c977
42099c757752c32114446621bc981114b91f1d5f
F20101119_AAAFHZ tilghman_m_Page_189.tif
0a7573f6e3c0d6931678d6f9a6449713
0592ae90ffb725a16f59aeb46b766a46ac6d23a0
68737 F20101119_AAAGET tilghman_m_Page_015.pro
801e818dfb60ca006cc5c09257bb44b5
2d0d008d3f77a992a479a8148c98f0445a0fdb99
20653 F20101119_AAAGEU tilghman_m_Page_017.pro
3da9add47ecf28cac6c7f415e826a640
8439cd034e185d14add7c406077a77e3f9d30be5
F20101119_AAAEQA tilghman_m_Page_042.tif
bdb85c9e33737a3675cb2db51238b5dc
d75795e4490fccd564f8d679e640b67491f3791c
47101 F20101119_AAAGEV tilghman_m_Page_020.pro
53c7f31cfb5ea5338a73d77072dcc856
881b00da9a11f8a928b75dee8da740e41e6b5606
338 F20101119_AAAEQB tilghman_m_Page_061.txt
950523dd554fc429ed1f786d6ca3f136
043846a2b44127ff125343f2a88ca388d6d9b2d6
51477 F20101119_AAAGEW tilghman_m_Page_025.pro
a151818b61d86985666234bac2efd2c4
b8eb1695e05d259aceddb52302f039750745c9b9
58394 F20101119_AAAEQC tilghman_m_Page_192.jp2
9577e653ce0d4c179980cce0973c35fa
17100645d8c17159f957293e3db34c3f8dc8514c
49346 F20101119_AAAGEX tilghman_m_Page_028.pro
6b8c450ffb429f06125b4849de9aa55d
160eecf3a5b1ebd3799cd8359309ce6802b1301d
52219 F20101119_AAAEQD tilghman_m_Page_146.pro
b4e9a94f8bc3977566117b2d29cfc105
774707fcab22613abc481d1d2ff841441481e086
48625 F20101119_AAAGEY tilghman_m_Page_029.pro
aa9f4aa828a724a09cbe8f57109fde6b
a44ca39b835c34aec74e918d1d0770c997328e7e
F20101119_AAAEQE tilghman_m_Page_129.tif
ef5ed19e5dab76a4612507342883877a
ea187539fe299fc585acf61fb4158429562ba626
52075 F20101119_AAAGEZ tilghman_m_Page_033.pro
a55cfdd2d0224fefd3e0cf36db80dc49
23ab9ee557a413a3bef108683b76e5d46e71f3f4
7037 F20101119_AAAEQF tilghman_m_Page_009thm.jpg
b33e97765da0f472978c5ecba15e455f
d157ad9a28977b3c3448bee54fc97991d6238348
8267 F20101119_AAAEQG tilghman_m_Page_151thm.jpg
35f6eafdbb685129d52c45deeca0a810
d061ab8099a8377b5b8b8d4637898761b6a57fbc
85236 F20101119_AAAEQH tilghman_m_Page_189.pro
9ec3311a1ad3874ed8327ebe348af8ac
316e2dc0b0f54079ce3019a639083835b3f043a5
26651 F20101119_AAAFNA tilghman_m_Page_036.QC.jpg
2f3aeab57c0474eaba451f4888d1e779
f0c815ace52b909379b5bfc922b45ef9c2c6c376
F20101119_AAAEQI tilghman_m_Page_076.tif
20a4e46e2d01fb7d0732f95500caaa78
0d2e70cbd07b67acc07657f1267470ae09698ff6
43171 F20101119_AAAFNB tilghman_m_Page_004.jp2
2ddd7158d71113faf021297bb5dfcf61
68b78d40bb3680132508ff0b636fd60296ef3ed8
51551 F20101119_AAAEQJ tilghman_m_Page_213.pro
d39cf933c319c7a300dc67a7e3e8b808
43a466ca1aeb8d85d622ad1d81f7da619098395a
32849 F20101119_AAAFNC tilghman_m_Page_148.QC.jpg
6eace315ad214312b659a133a58349de
7909112989d7db5be1da0a06c61b139ca8a7441d
73713 F20101119_AAAEQK tilghman_m_Page_016.jpg
220fd363e8331285aefc91a74d8a905c
a4e97384ae6060c95558c62742089ac9aa9c458e
12671 F20101119_AAAFND tilghman_m_Page_221.QC.jpg
bb392ad1752a5178472bd0e688797223
01c4b7e8ed611689e8cddc0189e7190e68ccdab7
F20101119_AAAEQL tilghman_m_Page_089.tif
de830942e054fa33a8a574e5e5e570b1
0bff3cf94bd01540d67029e0defb74aa66d0e29e
9436 F20101119_AAAFNE tilghman_m_Page_226.pro
0ae0e4f2a0127fa82e749c35d360dd3d
878a25ab7f4b479af1abb726b750cceed896a0c1
49835 F20101119_AAAEQM tilghman_m_Page_097.pro
0fa060c94cb3f9e16266a8f15208b113
96856ec4076a7c8209444623e96f3db1d02d691c
8672 F20101119_AAAFNF tilghman_m_Page_015thm.jpg
4b42865aab687d4dacc8a1a821b1ca93
0f736971c5302b8354fe03900d19dc258dabb50a
122948 F20101119_AAAEQN tilghman_m_Page_108.jp2
a5ca90c2e45370a72cb289c79fc36ea1
9daf013f7d98be02244befe57160fcbdde4e7322
30198 F20101119_AAAFNG tilghman_m_Page_116.QC.jpg
a22fe5b67023ebc1e83d90db02642764
0de296caa4d2819a887be78d09eef31c7ab75ed3
857 F20101119_AAAGKA tilghman_m_Page_135.txt
28a3d536a6ea5fb60358ead4729545b6
57a7cff0baf189426be758768187f0056032f2db
88839 F20101119_AAAEQO tilghman_m_Page_198.jpg
d4ff859ec0a07625988b351cbcd07bfa
f8d9245a9939bb1cb2407e7d3b69055d1ff63b9c
25047 F20101119_AAAFNH tilghman_m_Page_177.jpg
d4e5ca83726dd5a61341dd0db1776af2
3af3cd79181c6b06e3eeabe7d7b0629551a8324d
2064 F20101119_AAAGKB tilghman_m_Page_140.txt
fde9639596d3c2b05baf418f3e5a1f9e
210aa7ac3c80eec601616a38ef8b730ad1e52e43
24784 F20101119_AAAEQP tilghman_m_Page_171.QC.jpg
3972418e1eab608eeab410289313ec30
fd6bff94fac6e4a08ffbef7dccdee9d95959e59f
58133 F20101119_AAAFNI tilghman_m_Page_107.jpg
b7ce8876f614c883eec88cbe93eb4ff0
2e1ce15bb497088ae32ae19e82f989f0db51bdc2
F20101119_AAAGKC tilghman_m_Page_141.txt
bfc0e1be5fb078c5289c903ffe58bfde
f915114f33f9fa117ae579f6f5e1a0e3e8f20c15
135108 F20101119_AAAEQQ tilghman_m_Page_193.jpg
58afa82723ff073d88c9fa116940a8fb
18ba6a6c13243210325330452e804090c625fc69
7140 F20101119_AAAFNJ tilghman_m_Page_087thm.jpg
0a913d465052d43ac6bc0d4ff217f3cd
974fe0b534544fe12ea7f64ebfc0b05bee21d83d
2131 F20101119_AAAGKD tilghman_m_Page_145.txt
153566480e62670c02d58cd7d0849a1e
fc6a5c843a754c50fe9c4e4a343f17cbbcf65c52
137073 F20101119_AAAEQR tilghman_m_Page_012.jpg
61ea8d6d2ceb539dd0913ebefe060dea
2b150f0ddcc85fc8e80fa09017a8ade7c8884ae6
F20101119_AAAFNK tilghman_m_Page_132.tif
c47746329c0cbf861382e33586187b76
b590b85ae3d14956c96eacc0628968dc4951b12a
1952 F20101119_AAAGKE tilghman_m_Page_150.txt
c235ead81a41337a29c6e07aafdc8716
a9adf89f6bdeb7b5a2dda352417046af2d5358a8
40279 F20101119_AAAFAA tilghman_m_Page_063.QC.jpg
09d1b08fe24e83c9591ee01977f93ba6
57208d44b6d078bb672e42f383f523aac28b026b
3811 F20101119_AAAEQS tilghman_m_Page_017thm.jpg
1ff4359106be74b8c67be6564a506003
81de39ce52eae6859691c30c645b9db8113929b1
57366 F20101119_AAAFNL tilghman_m_Page_009.pro
06575e6a060549404b6e7939d1da915b
cde42234c3a3716a19cfa832b5ec7c379e7163a6
1854 F20101119_AAAGKF tilghman_m_Page_152.txt
e64fa031c8eba0a2d38e13fd89e2a90f
f9e110eba2e0ce49f1aab2e6961b0fc595f0ac94
46904 F20101119_AAAFAB tilghman_m_Page_126.pro
e0c780f7ea202788cb986755d725fe3c
aa0f9158e546e5a24ed65996573b03982ebe9b5d
29477 F20101119_AAAEQT tilghman_m_Page_104.QC.jpg
e85b512f4e5c8ca5920d1f8951a0a98b
61d596ecb6bd21033dacab01c671e9240e86f0c9
F20101119_AAAFNM tilghman_m_Page_016.tif
a0d11a3edb7d5db382089de57872a708
3b1a4b48baf081167457320a46d1d79c3052beed
2623 F20101119_AAAGKG tilghman_m_Page_155.txt
8215b7d378c3e7b423cf303f169d1a69
493cd69f1cb85ee7f542cf9e56ee84ede095ee1d
8265 F20101119_AAAFAC tilghman_m_Page_149thm.jpg
6b7e1a7d599c3c41c8287fac6bb99331
558b5daaeccfe6051fc8bce4786fcbbf03b1075f
97766 F20101119_AAAEQU tilghman_m_Page_065.jpg
33d07f348c8c923aa8b013d59a9eb462
d642e2b218a0d0cbd11248d914ee655c234ebeba
25556 F20101119_AAAFNN tilghman_m_Page_086.QC.jpg
7b7608b3b25f449bc826c3da4b33d599
a55859a34929de5812e058a2ef666b9cdab4b5dc
166 F20101119_AAAGKH tilghman_m_Page_156.txt
101aef8a7a64e0ed80c4834335c6ea94
6b873eb8c23c075b8aa9acef7a9088e04dcae842
135856 F20101119_AAAFAD tilghman_m_Page_006.jpg
b3fc1194cb8d37e48748c07966c58ac3
cf0e34da2f68eae830839433425c8612fac56358
31607 F20101119_AAAEQV tilghman_m_Page_069.QC.jpg
34a8c664ac28a8143e2d868496135d67
118f3f724691f7bcc07e630a3184581ab8bf7c0d
4567 F20101119_AAAFNO tilghman_m_Page_003.jpg
c429eb97f7873f9fcd9f33fb9d24007c
a4e4772f65ee6e214025c934870237688ca6eb6a
1881 F20101119_AAAGKI tilghman_m_Page_157.txt
123a77097bddcd882b132a265000c8d4
8013fb41c1c4668e6cd19ae5125aba94995168b4
5696 F20101119_AAAFAE tilghman_m_Page_061.QC.jpg
d98b705f4807d8ca7744998f660e1f3a
bee0d88931a8e29dcb7287ca44cf38d32599e1ed
26093 F20101119_AAAEQW tilghman_m_Page_169.QC.jpg
b15135b6f131c9f373dc369a8feef65c
6312d91cfd85ff46f2535cc335d86d96bfcaf971
36883 F20101119_AAAFNP tilghman_m_Page_011.QC.jpg
ae16f885e12b547216576f53e36d668f
ab57e0d92b9464502e6f8fb22f1251214a36f78a
1191 F20101119_AAAGKJ tilghman_m_Page_162.txt
e0f6e053af22c0de4373214675c3c91d
05506579758f9b53c8d484bdd2e0c50cac10768c
25563 F20101119_AAAFAF tilghman_m_Page_180.pro
a2f77e473d49a321706c1bbb97c01eff
224f2d327c820f0ca9c4d38d88dc79962b1cd771
93767 F20101119_AAAEQX tilghman_m_Page_065.jp2
41576091757f247236272965304e925c
07cd2b29f7c7dae39babcd16fae504212b829174
F20101119_AAAFNQ tilghman_m_Page_173.tif
6afc30c3e246aaf815bc0effbdd27e00
f85ceb952d2bc00fb07412029c88caa9daf9c9fd
1233 F20101119_AAAGKK tilghman_m_Page_163.txt
613566abb7ba150931e5337ad133f33d
5bd3ecee6224f5facbb547155f49a010a0a15af8
107335 F20101119_AAAFAG tilghman_m_Page_092.jp2
9160ba3ea7829faf21b184b28ad47f77
80959af21ee39b5591793df5deda59becd5a32b1
26292 F20101119_AAAFNR tilghman_m_Page_203.jp2
bc5dcd05c80e84286ab5bc1496488c66
cee054a6e0200b43baf68a1f23a35b86e700b152
4236 F20101119_AAAGKL tilghman_m_Page_164.txt
ae62d61d29ed3f62f284a176ca77b227
3ae7125ed0705a4902226c8159b677ef4650f49b
66991 F20101119_AAAEQY tilghman_m_Page_163.jp2
e697338d4ef943c73f44062ea127fc3a
14d051c0237bbedf42e5f7f029783b1cd5e6606a
34519 F20101119_AAAFNS tilghman_m_Page_129.QC.jpg
78d16e02e6169264085f21200bf7aa46
2794a4a435f9d65be4a8a62e9dcfba10beb939b0
606 F20101119_AAAGKM tilghman_m_Page_165.txt
89c2dc27ce48f7f4a8d65cd648990c3a
44e7e5c6a3fd5740da26ce00b8b4c5171fe7b791
109118 F20101119_AAAFAH tilghman_m_Page_093.jp2
0263f2ef9324068149e5b0080890f997
1458abe102e4a2fa2ade6a73bbc715cd8d1b666d
F20101119_AAAEQZ tilghman_m_Page_029.tif
ee569494c65e93b9c3b2f2649405d8bd
cf1c94ef491ffef540b969731a4292ca245b16d9
8062 F20101119_AAAFNT tilghman_m_Page_127thm.jpg
66edef7a2015ea75140603d520f01fea
71c96d5be162ebed3a21d7f56066efa13cab1598
3820 F20101119_AAAGKN tilghman_m_Page_170.txt
0e9ad5f22fb25a3eb084aac351ad1317
7c62eb6fca4a0b56ff58ee224ab0fe5f512f109a
31953 F20101119_AAAFAI tilghman_m_Page_027.QC.jpg
40f2e09e3d21a70921378a6fbe92ad6d
146918944256aab90252f13edf9b9d846b28c413
4183 F20101119_AAAGKO tilghman_m_Page_176.txt
372643eac7fcec395e2a39d618c3c949
c2ad7d2675c8c0fefcb3bc763ed617b06f0fa270
701777 F20101119_AAAFAJ tilghman_m_Page_084.jp2
03f0761a5ce36bff9db9fa910f769c09
2259b47d75539f722e0b7b821e802ac5d6fa4b80
16730 F20101119_AAAFNU tilghman_m_Page_101.pro
3bbeb150d6b1c7bba5c53d0392d9f37f
a0db7cbda3b79a4cabccc0d8a98e9689a240e620
2737 F20101119_AAAGKP tilghman_m_Page_178.txt
13d5fbb6eac174a57d41fb12be6286d3
a33102e03bb26db27715ec3939033c5d958aef9a
1985 F20101119_AAAFAK tilghman_m_Page_133.txt
e671fc1ca63f37d067b9c2fb67436692
1c90a8931031f1b29fe4d35e101d6b3632948ffe
110775 F20101119_AAAFNV tilghman_m_Page_043.jp2
d9c56a773f3cf996ca06ad36d725410d
3ac693825ebb0847d49970722384f17a5e4b02b5
54717 F20101119_AAAFAL tilghman_m_Page_111.pro
23f47c18be95ab79d6009382111b2120
ba5ee444995f9c9ebd5af18c4f05db903996acce
2693 F20101119_AAAFNW tilghman_m_Page_106.txt
cc07b9afe2cf6159f8382c740aa62009
51ed26a3653d547bcd51f144e219fd80b1d5040e
2838 F20101119_AAAFAM tilghman_m_Page_068.txt
90fc11d132e79a615e380c87b0039640
9a78b8ffe2153de34d9e961a35526c220f1ec540
7955 F20101119_AAAFNX tilghman_m_Page_093thm.jpg
4ea35b4d69d6469dbe2916ff80f800eb
4f57fe60bfa0e2babfa8582aa5a9bd1ddbf09cc6
4023 F20101119_AAAGKQ tilghman_m_Page_179.txt
237693661a029d6a66a0576fb73993c9
0d0e342dfbab1f608370671e2cf90d80629018a3
8102 F20101119_AAAFAN tilghman_m_Page_114thm.jpg
de90c70285fd084a226eed16192a4147
6258aa44bb8555e8a40505d9424c7ccba8fd59a6
92862 F20101119_AAAFNY tilghman_m_Page_078.jp2
6b6d0ade3897efc3b310c7e6dc29a7d8
60f76a21a3fbaaf5c97249c866ff4c61512d401d
3294 F20101119_AAAGKR tilghman_m_Page_181.txt
ab30f85498c9e5d4cb532b7c74ae02df
d8ff7443d60f244c70653cbc5099f71fdec37b80
99774 F20101119_AAAFAO tilghman_m_Page_118.jp2
27432d3c6374ec0750f7c2f3bd197e48
69c21d75ca2b2883740a012c33f9f1da3bf505f0
38126 F20101119_AAAFNZ tilghman_m_Page_193.QC.jpg
61a973953c5631602709e4e3a237a423
538b6d3797e5821b6277e33df74ad44e1c72643d
3685 F20101119_AAAGKS tilghman_m_Page_183.txt
7981728349ece83dd485ef18f99a14bc
47940f2f6d93a570ea0587befa9222dc76627bee
31994 F20101119_AAAFAP tilghman_m_Page_077.QC.jpg
32c1e16238fd7fed77375c4280a9922e
30ad21bd816deae252afb5bd9ec5f4885cc928ad
808 F20101119_AAAGKT tilghman_m_Page_184.txt
051882a8013888700c43f8014d338b0d
7b1b4ec952a9b50f56a5ec1012362f1b4a55c765
7822 F20101119_AAAEWA tilghman_m_Page_052thm.jpg
924120804b89ab032082b4efd170f649
e7f851344825e4ce620f22c89efa64f20a66539c
49692 F20101119_AAAFAQ tilghman_m_Page_027.pro
4dce70ca1f3dc54090fd84079b33253b
db64c1d8c8218840cfeb7aab23b54f2d6c0223cb
879 F20101119_AAAGKU tilghman_m_Page_188.txt
7f12da7fafc42aaa950e8d6d4fdd547a
1df9e12a03bfff2402d16154b13a5ede646a7e5d
941 F20101119_AAAEWB tilghman_m_Page_156thm.jpg
3b4932f734b011d8d5daa359e0e7bb4e
bb8184ec97f599d3835b370b3ba95f6dc4370da2
82685 F20101119_AAAFAR tilghman_m_Page_202.pro
d1e5c3412e7d8a16e40deefb5face682
7f7b5728171280d357ce5fb48e3bf36b8a438516
2125 F20101119_AAAGKV tilghman_m_Page_190.txt
7e8b471c5b45780bc60735d10609f28e
f86f55046db133598402466817e4914480e817ad
17716 F20101119_AAAEWC tilghman_m_Page_197.QC.jpg
b24cd125c41aba3cfb43137f37d70693
8c74ab8793e4399bd2438769fce32881309cc7c8
1467 F20101119_AAAFAS tilghman_m_Page_207.txt
38fd3136dbeff60e9371fe587efd2b9a
82f466c5ba58f9ef83150f369835dd6a3a4d9059
3928 F20101119_AAAGKW tilghman_m_Page_191.txt
d94ce0b92d65ca23f8254b7c41f4365d
0c70a1fc5c8e9f7bf123d9f51d47ac892e110408
3531 F20101119_AAAEWD tilghman_m_Page_172.txt
d58e627596ec51d0ea525713a991d4e4
7494af32898af3edae7bf6a4781343bb5267bfcf
30166 F20101119_AAAFAT tilghman_m_Page_084.pro
5009bb8f9ab2e9ea5287ae1bb9c08bd3
45a12f4682804120a89e4781626096bc814f08f1
2010 F20101119_AAAGKX tilghman_m_Page_192.txt
e8c4ab3e03255caf5ce6ac1b3a7e87e5
a03471723b0884734194af83c5505e14b6cced3b
51040 F20101119_AAAEWE tilghman_m_Page_026.pro
03a6d8b8eac0fbce97c7b358e546ea70
f4a93d25a2eab849b58bb9916246c1690ef7a45c
8240 F20101119_AAAFAU tilghman_m_Page_113thm.jpg
895acc91d70b0f7c867d8ab24f2aa84d
38d5a3dcaba8a473c17e859e5cba79aa4739f0ce
2750 F20101119_AAAGKY tilghman_m_Page_195.txt
15c1c81b9550d2a783ffbeb52d55901e
f8319ca87db429c7c6b9609657a81e3eb19e37f8
2042 F20101119_AAAEWF tilghman_m_Page_149.txt
baa6acde9a5738436449c13df4cd139e
07b030cb550063ec98376d0714de1442a4709445
F20101119_AAAFAV tilghman_m_Page_034.tif
6e30419c0c4a6c364bc2a2be5b4c5797
0e3aba4a2b83270816da098df624fdef06f0e596
2145 F20101119_AAAGKZ tilghman_m_Page_198.txt
48b257be00c66f6a07564dd46dd219d8
987382def56e5b3f42ef27b86674da56d51ec13b
1971 F20101119_AAAEWG tilghman_m_Page_227.txt
a3a94b2521c1b90733baa63399ecb0c3
cd60f0766b0d26b7275bb4029e2fa604aa89b8a7
2865 F20101119_AAAFAW tilghman_m_Page_171.txt
cc97a478bcd607f59f6b95f4ce660491
2bcf8f5a8cea1431407a636e0ba2ffd56e39929a
83800 F20101119_AAAEWH tilghman_m_Page_114.jpg
4a16a5256a71880c94898aec5f0dc782
940b990e581f3f839affe588fed920ce379dead0
2899 F20101119_AAAFAX tilghman_m_Page_010.txt
3b23ed08d608dc395b0fc98ecff8f13f
644680f06df8764b23d448bd63bd400a47bcd0d9
103614 F20101119_AAAFTA tilghman_m_Page_195.jpg
be3e234cdd5623d0ef666a2bdb9d2027
1ed6f22d3738f524b644c8602fa91f0acb0d7452
92885 F20101119_AAAEWI tilghman_m_Page_034.jpg
b6e0f833b2e719e7ef14622da5831bcd
4ebf44c2e48a63108f5a4651702b2d2518ea3621
105779 F20101119_AAAFAY tilghman_m_Page_029.jp2
c6bffe480febe80d51dccbef308e463f
978d1da434262b7ac3b31f3b559d0b5e2fca1ad1
85703 F20101119_AAAFTB tilghman_m_Page_137.jpg
0dad200c99d5492bdf270afe1cfd65e8
4d470c69ba2023f50bb0cfa782a449ba2a2b76bd
14051 F20101119_AAAEWJ tilghman_m_Page_017.QC.jpg
672793aa481bed40c9ddf6e1ee94732f
c736ddda954a7862122a1b97f157baeee48bdccc
F20101119_AAAFAZ tilghman_m_Page_126.tif
a8a1062d6b495baca67899688aaf2e6e
4250534cc172d42e95aaae4cc6d6d070caccb239
952013 F20101119_AAAFTC tilghman_m_Page_133.jp2
e45b69488907da8ab07fa813e4939f52
06b170183b15f54d0975d0699dfdd1f112921f97
50283 F20101119_AAAEWK tilghman_m_Page_077.pro
6fa7d2c6f0c4e45aca328704531077e7
fc862320a4ba4feea2361f0252dc7908d1f40411
60139 F20101119_AAAFTD tilghman_m_Page_099.pro
e4c4d6b36cf30ee0b0472cd5a1a36d79
673eff509d4344809f4f70375be5f61a9f53413d
8291 F20101119_AAAEWL tilghman_m_Page_090thm.jpg
0c03fe5aa45c53a90bdc9663401a342a
4e15f3c629fab5c5b25f93ac00edf889f4324f93
1795 F20101119_AAAFTE tilghman_m_Page_118.txt
089572bd00368a172a7d41df36f85a34
1879ff685c1929e72a1fb500e6e7050b123b2ff7
8443 F20101119_AAAEJA tilghman_m_Page_153thm.jpg
b78810d9ce0623d448c80906e6c20ac8
48e6dac3c21872fed93571a7e9d6524553d34419
94804 F20101119_AAAEWM tilghman_m_Page_132.jpg
2eeea60692d828809831b42960091102
a1d5358010687300eae3a6e4926bb6fb5249d3b9
6910 F20101119_AAAFTF tilghman_m_Page_084thm.jpg
46f38221871183c5ea1f197aaacb4ff5
76656c503c5e12c5f9d64a7c72b2e2465e675575
F20101119_AAAEJB tilghman_m_Page_054.tif
f2c501e72fa92ce936b0b3b7f762280f
6bf354af7e5aefe38e865dab62bbfbc3b605a2bd
85975 F20101119_AAAEWN tilghman_m_Page_224.jpg
6a288f4bb1cae46a275a1656873d7e3c
e6e22f4b98b54dbe15d6014687021049cd90b913
21908 F20101119_AAAFTG tilghman_m_Page_209.jpg
c822de17a8bbb91f152dc7a430cc29f1
e207f55848f7247e59207e3128c36bd4df9ed275
103333 F20101119_AAAEJC tilghman_m_Page_060.jpg
7dba53cc59ea4e349e4a69cdb2bb82ba
8c8985ea65f29d5df8f6aeb6e9420a9d732fee55
F20101119_AAAEWO tilghman_m_Page_153.txt
e0008fc7b95da71047bc86ba46f08a6f
245b84806101567b7fc82597d44184e050b1ea6d
18031 F20101119_AAAFTH tilghman_m_Page_226.jpg
2b87c10014926cfa4f40dcb9152d026d
65506e9bde5504823d0864a55a27db25ab642cd9
27426 F20101119_AAAGQA tilghman_m_Page_134.QC.jpg
1f504cd9e3f7e3fc1bfc91034abbaf6a
7893f55544fdb4a228539df25733971f41c6da7b
45107 F20101119_AAAEJD tilghman_m_Page_118.pro
b2f0451060ce0644edbc6f354b1e52fa
1a3221632ff2293267e7be8933d3efa57e9ba702
8864 F20101119_AAAEWP tilghman_m_Page_010thm.jpg
ce492de3d145f8bc39a3034198914960
4053294c0b594d0dcfe693e5063cfc878a3deb53
32215 F20101119_AAAFTI tilghman_m_Page_036.pro
d7d0e72a89cdb88a1e8a0f5b78ae3df6
dbb6ae1ee57417a1c79592fff8cbb6f93b689947
20119 F20101119_AAAGQB tilghman_m_Page_135.QC.jpg
c5e61a8420a28601379b6f46f5e97dd7
5c5ff06db9a1f88b3f4cf2244b14a3b89358dc25
111368 F20101119_AAAEJE tilghman_m_Page_147.jp2
f14b29f8fa8475081c48ef1963b163f4
e845dc1fd93abaaafed32294b3b47dd018f365c5
93085 F20101119_AAAEWQ tilghman_m_Page_169.jpg
cb32f3bbf1a7655c5e412257c650650f
ba23a7d7ba8da382ec46ee44372bd7ede4e032a6
89090 F20101119_AAAFTJ tilghman_m_Page_018.jp2
7f1abc8a2fc88ab402bfaad9a9a668b2
f25a16f85cb25bc32f980ccc6ee6697c8a9cb35d
7268 F20101119_AAAGQC tilghman_m_Page_136thm.jpg
f9a3cc115a3b8f463f90b358eb650624
abad7e2df9ca7fe7c5650b786d89e341ce153fc2
8045 F20101119_AAAEJF tilghman_m_Page_071thm.jpg
01fc7180485bd9a27e768ca66e5696e4
29948a4804af39e0771e2786b030acff05b8b6ff
F20101119_AAAEWR tilghman_m_Page_184thm.jpg
a5291ed5cebfe1bfb51cc4037de637ed
8ef6902e230416e812077e1e0227caab40418578
111739 F20101119_AAAFTK tilghman_m_Page_033.jp2
5cc06e07cd62af4445dafbfef1ef0e3a
e26527dfaf6903ff7ef7b80d17cbc12de5ec6056
7556 F20101119_AAAGQD tilghman_m_Page_137thm.jpg
bb1dc429f292b3e5a58e6196f0f3a0c6
69e1cc2e2d931daf648e6aeb8dc097217095b7ed
90036 F20101119_AAAEJG tilghman_m_Page_062.jp2
5cf24230a3fa5ef10fa4bf0108f9cf07
15c978c906ca7bacec9cd275d874c9253c9d137a
49547 F20101119_AAAFGA tilghman_m_Page_070.pro
f2dcf497932ad14b2e59c5273ba6f0cf
1fd006a19e431b543d761a6d07cdf6db4d6de4c6
F20101119_AAAEWS tilghman_m_Page_049.tif
8cbb5eb6b5404353c72e3ef4a23c4a32
d9a837b278528efe8e9f60b706ab5d0fe2fa75b9
F20101119_AAAFTL tilghman_m_Page_221.tif
0186ae0524b0949e017b89cc919991b1
9b1c76f614374faa541f353cfc34be4378b3ccd7
8579 F20101119_AAAGQE tilghman_m_Page_138thm.jpg
243041dd24a5d57b8be2fe4a76ee3239
1245d8f4d43bb77c87d8663b4b0771ddd474562d
2046 F20101119_AAAEJH tilghman_m_Page_042.txt
a7abaa320341e91584e1a7295ee04f83
38402f055d699af38df3125d2c91fbe732272a83
1481 F20101119_AAAFGB tilghman_m_Page_134.txt
3de5de9516fa1751a564254ee101ab34
ad47f34bef261df37cea638b215fea6045863252
109058 F20101119_AAAEWT tilghman_m_Page_057.jp2
74f3af3928e3425baecf28c247bc9c6a
d137ba3c018be1bb8260282d8a576b68078959c8
124883 F20101119_AAAFTM tilghman_m_Page_167.jp2
f0ba975674d68fcc7de12e13ac298eb2
e86ed5df013c39d3eca6a55952e36af03e6ed866
34189 F20101119_AAAGQF tilghman_m_Page_138.QC.jpg
6382a073f5368162d97641855f3cd521
df75f4cfeb69e9ab5838f534bf4c249f0e162fdf
F20101119_AAAEJI tilghman_m_Page_064.tif
2dcb34e8eabc5ab86b6a9fea8ce649ab
83c65d3d22e0d31da543da144bb09c9d67e129ce
11054 F20101119_AAAFGC tilghman_m_Page_177.pro
20b5b1f833f60ff641621a30bbe5fd9d
3094574d4ec7f764b1d3f39bfed201adb69e2fc9
F20101119_AAAEWU tilghman_m_Page_168.tif
681644084ba2819b8df40a91895e4f96
5243c3897aa7fbb176eecb2232de51d0c6097992
8303 F20101119_AAAFTN tilghman_m_Page_047thm.jpg
3c65fed42732e26222fb4e506bdf0e73
d01e12c2f7cfed0b6c3920c3b8f3344b5f507a09
8133 F20101119_AAAGQG tilghman_m_Page_142thm.jpg
7c2bfcf7b4cc1adf5e4035483e9a8b4b
acc43e9d8d771689f9c1216a8555ddd46d81e84a
99238 F20101119_AAAEJJ tilghman_m_Page_045.jpg
e312a61abb9410d3aba15ade8eb5457d
024bde2338f36037b541026a6bef0d12a5b5ae3c
F20101119_AAAFGD tilghman_m_Page_015.tif
10989d55d023905ee40a7fa1ac2e7f3f
d5f27a33a708bcaff0d5880763a3ec345a614f03
75227 F20101119_AAAEWV tilghman_m_Page_124.jpg
5dde60e49f9258c9ac8956fb2291c483
be4197b8b41a68e0272bfd32b759a422f1919b37
6402 F20101119_AAAFTO tilghman_m_Page_022thm.jpg
29e824501200c98939c61d289a6f8fc6
a6d3e3e1a471118098cce34c0ddb52271da435d2
33240 F20101119_AAAGQH tilghman_m_Page_142.QC.jpg
c0fea24461b321633d1c1f18ff4bcce8
bfbc4d73fc4921844409af625bb16961beef9dcc
8848 F20101119_AAAEJK tilghman_m_Page_167thm.jpg
8cded7f27d0b74883815e11b290d8868
13c0b9c574e02135c6cfb1c69fcbe682f1e58674
7232 F20101119_AAAFGE tilghman_m_Page_061.pro
e18a856761aa200362d3aa93b42bd80e
0f495ecff02452950d1d628f9f63ca34b9710ea6
24656 F20101119_AAAEWW tilghman_m_Page_117.QC.jpg
bcd16c7bd84298948497d5cf9fb0ad41
206f17e267a9458b05c0814efc96ef4bbcc75592
110717 F20101119_AAAFTP tilghman_m_Page_026.jp2
1251d220c93db6cf6027a12e249b3b10
5fe7e2e8af54ca866fe8ebb3553a0dc33eabf456
8462 F20101119_AAAGQI tilghman_m_Page_143thm.jpg
1dfd738ddad97674e6e44433c94c66aa
c6af62d5d249cc985c1753596222608a0e49ee76
19179 F20101119_AAAEJL tilghman_m_Page_215.QC.jpg
b218cae3c8ff93d4136b94ed6f753e50
54750c555d8d595829207cb70dc7b2d896beedd1
F20101119_AAAFGF tilghman_m_Page_152.tif
400d0f99c0c97e79b9df7b234dffdf96
d48e4876e30bae86f9d4ff4d079de20c41bc5ddb
8308 F20101119_AAAEWX tilghman_m_Page_025thm.jpg
a59af17a4f2ffce38986851b098d4d01
4d7322d31c27353c56a9838e1d2453771f466123
1051977 F20101119_AAAFTQ tilghman_m_Page_121.jp2
0544a70db887be2f2205f1438125d9f9
85b71a37c9c6f229dc6e163a9ee4bced9de71186
34068 F20101119_AAAGQJ tilghman_m_Page_143.QC.jpg
b47fdac5b0a198aeac41542c8b7008c8
74d6b027e444b54615f8f385a2ffa9f9ef848fea
141533 F20101119_AAAEJM tilghman_m_Page_164.jpg
06816d93517fa3bf53e936c2c9bae550
f3a4ca12db2fa19a2b076b1424b2ce084d029c87
37594 F20101119_AAAFGG tilghman_m_Page_130.QC.jpg
1eef2441d5c59b7a1299c2cb49436e77
a85d55f92f4bad90e1e36d1778977af21bfaecbf
23127 F20101119_AAAEWY tilghman_m_Page_220.jp2
f25c7d9762f77d7929fcc8b67b6d5663
8ee9d2c05efc1a2ab9b56569226ec3ebbd549d6e
8300 F20101119_AAAFTR tilghman_m_Page_001.pro
84d52f6b1da8a882c1ab0bb0cb5cfcee
88d686c3cb5444d6a7d744e4e0985dd234ee6018
35256 F20101119_AAAGQK tilghman_m_Page_144.QC.jpg
ea4567b89187d1cab93d038a4a892d89
563aecc22496d4fb5cd391ac0764d85110c7ea83
F20101119_AAAEJN tilghman_m_Page_048.tif
d85ea36da84814c95bd9d27ff465e2b6
92d72051d938cdb8481bc11f70ef99cf8727d773
4879 F20101119_AAAFGH tilghman_m_Page_190thm.jpg
4c30ee5412d2a41e81999b42451408c2
6906dcc95ae36ad4a66ef4d7cfb34567b8e4dc2b
2032 F20101119_AAAEWZ tilghman_m_Page_147.txt
c0a1772ef100ef92d7c5147bf6d7c761
ee6e0753311abe6faba7d758d4db1e2e8154d635
F20101119_AAAGDA tilghman_m_Page_122.tif
5d170d43a738adce3b93a187e49fa048
4d0b0b358669efc2e7ded3efea2be52f2c3822be
7670 F20101119_AAAFTS tilghman_m_Page_065thm.jpg
6d21c13052d5973516a9eac643c29de8
3a8ff27892330cd8f8881958312f3b3facfff3ba
8250 F20101119_AAAGQL tilghman_m_Page_145thm.jpg
94dc6675b350f7ebad5a4f3169722d42
e5c67e5fda1b13eb86cfc46e2ec684377635e66a
148941 F20101119_AAAEJO tilghman_m_Page_191.jpg
b213c72f89163a55ffba212aeb423259
4da7bd3073874ad604deab638bddb2ba45460407
2007 F20101119_AAAFGI tilghman_m_Page_038.txt
1168da55cc0d9aa8fa636fa507f74a51
7948bab9ed1ffce575ffb532abcd06d11c5b91e1
F20101119_AAAGDB tilghman_m_Page_123.tif
5a1f2257939ee98fa8670a7f76776edd
14594aa446bdad2d9ba3425a5dfa15ed4ab85e40
57595 F20101119_AAAFTT tilghman_m_Page_201.jpg
87fe1170e0369e87be4f6ae1fd27bd25
82557d83b3a27796acd988ec0c7341d5e319b79c
34775 F20101119_AAAGQM tilghman_m_Page_149.QC.jpg
2a0f14082a49fcf09a847a6fd22cca39
c0c6722f175fe94b2efde3849fd814c7c35fce30
9160 F20101119_AAAEJP tilghman_m_Page_125thm.jpg
90f98017196fb6bc54e75e9f345132c7
84aeff7bc9d68e17826efd8217400d3eb950fad3
2019 F20101119_AAAFGJ tilghman_m_Page_072.txt
d2d093ac10b822482cb0abf799587e1f
0b52e43a808cd65a9e0223ff4153d9be08d13628
F20101119_AAAGDC tilghman_m_Page_128.tif
ab479abab062b593079753c3c4933e4c
a4dfb5f1ab7d4e3d86c7fa6e0a4ea6b16ceebab3
115636 F20101119_AAAFTU tilghman_m_Page_222.jp2
0e4cba2af27575e1d6dcde4e9ce49272
545d8eeb0accdbd79a7022de0d54cb5481a3f477
32642 F20101119_AAAGQN tilghman_m_Page_150.QC.jpg
cd443d00be7a4cc35439f821f26812d6
d20c5be90dd8c2846ff175a893438ee9efebba57
3492 F20101119_AAAEJQ tilghman_m_Page_167.txt
7229c37ec731325af34d71f3870b2946
72271fec09421a2c2d0942d0fc459cca8f61f956
69565 F20101119_AAAFGK tilghman_m_Page_190.jpg
a4a7d9b9d7dd0df965804a0f88bbf43e
0430a60f7e38c344e7352ca005e84dc8e076dd70
F20101119_AAAGDD tilghman_m_Page_133.tif
3750f5386d2661f5e5db5d5f7bd92ec6
74a5c8363d1b9ddf53ff8b4daf0aeab1684d3b05
83258 F20101119_AAAFTV tilghman_m_Page_123.jpg
48607903104b590e7dc202e9bd035983
d34cdfe388c9001e0134a9a0e20188b85d85cc19
32956 F20101119_AAAGQO tilghman_m_Page_151.QC.jpg
b65321804605372e29e698a6629f539a
347cfd346f91f69effc4103f4d0ca7d416ed305e
95672 F20101119_AAAFGL tilghman_m_Page_132.jp2
f434d759a9e30b534dde85a650ef3970
f2b64f47e8e4ceca26b62afa9182bec777b956e1
F20101119_AAAGDE tilghman_m_Page_136.tif
7ff08b681f5debbfc6fde8fc79b3af76
c84841482d84e9ba9936288367deb97303692051
101110 F20101119_AAAFTW tilghman_m_Page_178.jpg
fa3ccc8afa1decbfe4ab670af10f90f9
cacbc18d3e8794a9cc4da6f1d374c52ff233f6c5
7764 F20101119_AAAGQP tilghman_m_Page_152thm.jpg
fc371db8a764ddabd9be432fc383133b
58b68ec8b51435df2e28d49a761740bfdaefe494
F20101119_AAAEJR tilghman_m_Page_043.tif
cd1e93dd9d002204f8fe9c47d99f14f0
93d179303ad8bec1539e993405e86079b646d130
3472 F20101119_AAAFGM tilghman_m_Page_013thm.jpg
6e15687050302002e6b48cde71182d6d
163cb548321a745c52ab4795c31a51dcf0707ba6
F20101119_AAAGDF tilghman_m_Page_139.tif
8e30e966dee82f3806c5ad82d25d0c4d
9d5ef6f481d5f5c48dc877d144bd6504da2f7017
8449 F20101119_AAAFTX tilghman_m_Page_104thm.jpg
42442f2ff381907507636bc39e8cfdba
c9022f10b92d2229cbfec274217aba526e89a2ab
30101 F20101119_AAAGQQ tilghman_m_Page_152.QC.jpg
64bc051fd0e6eea56333496781cfc6a4
7fcbd30d816b04dfeb85c1b3ff652c43b7eb9ee8
1961 F20101119_AAAEJS tilghman_m_Page_039.txt
c34ee26a4be9e62610f3078cd626c23f
2d5ec887189efc707d00440d9ed4724481c7767e
F20101119_AAAGDG tilghman_m_Page_141.tif
5ea5fa5bb2e909737899dca7e6d859cb
9dc9a46f62f73ec5d5d0980c77e8565b28b903c5
28931 F20101119_AAAFTY tilghman_m_Page_139.pro
1bd12aa7a792db22f68864c177ea6916
9c319e656cea8e2b4f0e933dfb0c800eed5702e5
33283 F20101119_AAAGQR tilghman_m_Page_153.QC.jpg
602716506e8105cb97906a9a52d2af9a
b16e9895353fc2a9f41d50094a803fb54831df2d
24982 F20101119_AAAEJT tilghman_m_Page_194.jp2
2376b1c8644e125833094994917476e5
8c1b1a1714fdddc8a48349b135b5883c3459c4a6
F20101119_AAAFGN tilghman_m_Page_108.tif
92f89a82652b11e2560586718d7ae7b5
ef8017de3b8ade647671136ce6b8185111b6e88d
F20101119_AAAGDH tilghman_m_Page_143.tif
91c8c9f9006db608515a916a56ae69e0
91edc03dccfd158247e62a0c501c46ee604301ea
913 F20101119_AAAFTZ tilghman_m_Page_220.txt
3a484e00372462b120d8d86fa1a3bda7
63b14522d2aaecd8a52dc9ca0bc9a639056b5d7f
7984 F20101119_AAAGQS tilghman_m_Page_155thm.jpg
e26e078d78a0d3eaa1f7f41a139357c4
c0b5cb6ae0ff2ef1949c856cc675ec62ec351357
106277 F20101119_AAAEJU tilghman_m_Page_047.jpg
19cd1da2cd5e80f4398f8349d39033e5
45dd8ca426c2d4c305ed7c8103b6a0d8edb5f66d
34916 F20101119_AAAFGO tilghman_m_Page_140.QC.jpg
fbe3064d43a6ed8b1aca7dae2f6c9f00
53e26ea59d25d79f4eb066c49a0eb55226c8605e
F20101119_AAAGDI tilghman_m_Page_144.tif
9a2ac1402b76091f7a027c00bc671a42
13f2bafe25cdfa3d6133d9ac3d1cc4dbe4a40763
7511 F20101119_AAAGQT tilghman_m_Page_157thm.jpg
9b825da3f26646a0367a21b5ae31e338
d3eb91bbe95c489c86ff8ee888cf5f6dcbfffc29
106850 F20101119_AAAEJV tilghman_m_Page_032.jp2
037abb4935495d3e7f5f775fba2527b1
d5645ea0e030ff3e10a78826b4ccd8443f60448a
30107 F20101119_AAAFGP tilghman_m_Page_136.QC.jpg
7c037b32523138513bb8a84cfcd24557
f5c66908a7d163c39424df08cb51369db09059a8
30205 F20101119_AAAGQU tilghman_m_Page_157.QC.jpg
f5107e9dfca56305eac0302e5625f988
86e0011cd666c363b401ce20f9c05d249dbf3b4c
118853 F20101119_AAAEJW tilghman_m_Page_202.jp2
9141329860c7029e9a1fd03de60a9cff
f3f07b62c99cf31d278320ec63ad32eca210b065
31968 F20101119_AAAFGQ tilghman_m_Page_041.QC.jpg
7e37dfa2171928de4ff861a2df4747da
85200125869d5a4747dc009bd63a6b82a8dcac54
F20101119_AAAGDJ tilghman_m_Page_148.tif
3b684e748ef374c5b42726e5ca0ef428
8482d45c2ec2e1a10f922132ce6717cd77de1296
32934 F20101119_AAAGQV tilghman_m_Page_161.QC.jpg
7d01fc3514e616fd2c6b9083d077e039
3973fafba74b79d53a6c8a705632683d7914c543
F20101119_AAAEJX tilghman_m_Page_112.tif
2cdc34b02624f0df67b0dbfe6d72e2b2
f38dd6752264d7cfa3a251e3f683b7408a35770d
2000 F20101119_AAAFGR tilghman_m_Page_067.txt
e124d63c89644263b535ebc777ff41b8
6b3a9c3ac54b8ed18c3f14684735932fbfeda444
F20101119_AAAGDK tilghman_m_Page_149.tif
85dcfb44613ecd799610f523b6d676c5
e57f9cfc51cb0c91571ee6c7748db211c3b30e57
102968 F20101119_AAAEJY tilghman_m_Page_053.jp2
fb3d67622432471e7e091c53a68f588f
ede8108bd53e3320e4a6e699aeaa699a773a6ac2
7742 F20101119_AAAFGS tilghman_m_Page_066thm.jpg
3494a0d6468196aa055cb0973291333a
2e34be4bed9e3149fe392e1276188127a806b590
F20101119_AAAGDL tilghman_m_Page_150.tif
63aa804ce51d24edba5ce79169920e97
6066b631c3e9944a4bc4d24500b37a1716cf0433
7262 F20101119_AAAGQW tilghman_m_Page_162thm.jpg
fe8562c08f931c3cde5dce9bd08ad036
6111801e530b80677972d20c1c7d6f320a6088fa
8379 F20101119_AAAEJZ tilghman_m_Page_150thm.jpg
60ded408dbc4196b7ba25edc5b1cbf3f
fc60dd9df2af79b6bb6ea03f2e76a74c46a6cd1d
58122 F20101119_AAAFGT tilghman_m_Page_098.pro
cde97e890e8f81abce06eaadc38775d7
3e09e3712f3cb2c64d3c78b04fc8c86629a93d6e
F20101119_AAAGDM tilghman_m_Page_156.tif
0ab4e8d787fd1db890dfe91d0d985725
e7a3b1f471a6a66007d3e6fb700646e07c3a284c
27027 F20101119_AAAGQX tilghman_m_Page_162.QC.jpg
129493f3afd165392fdbf817ee3f129a
798286365e143f5c9554bd0f5b4a173d7f975275
105173 F20101119_AAAFGU tilghman_m_Page_060.jp2
54514b8f1190596ad761ffb8fdaab791
f6d1699434391721e49a4827e7e8954608eaa841
F20101119_AAAGDN tilghman_m_Page_160.tif
a3433e3f7b3f8de324098b829649bb65
317e5d0c81e8315d3aa0dce011b88b086bff441a
5344 F20101119_AAAGQY tilghman_m_Page_163thm.jpg
de2c10e074d3442fadf1a59e336a6c61
59e13c5170ecc3fb1e294cc7e287e9cf01e62afa
37174 F20101119_AAAFGV tilghman_m_Page_214.pro
be7fdc606c6ecea3b22d9898f32216b0
d6bbec42146f927770f4001ad954862e27074a3f
F20101119_AAAGDO tilghman_m_Page_162.tif
70dc741ac9dd72d89c29c092ca03772b
776a5e2e98dabf34e85f673ac41688bb794e3987
20682 F20101119_AAAGQZ tilghman_m_Page_163.QC.jpg
0d6c21562a12780e07c146a082f37dbb
eaf3f6e043aced68bbec0cdd374df64d3ca72f67
F20101119_AAAFGW tilghman_m_Page_157.tif
1dd6b9ed3eff5efd31dfeec3217439a2
7149b1d91fa22a1d3ed6c67bfa3f71c67d49c055
F20101119_AAAGDP tilghman_m_Page_166.tif
50cc33ccf64fc0a8812363553f932ef4
aaba1f5d9b580208ec2f8166f162c8bcd6783bc3
44342 F20101119_AAAFGX tilghman_m_Page_223.jp2
f5509643cdf441a80aebda64e36428c0
752ec79358411bb9ba12633770925a9531a52028
111277 F20101119_AAAFZA tilghman_m_Page_074.jp2
1af3848d2c38bd198420c39cddf64ea4
728a3e818ee51c60d17cc7e15f04b9972e0d5edd
F20101119_AAAGDQ tilghman_m_Page_170.tif
1bdf55cb928f2bba91b5dc146cd804ed
f77a77862dbe6975d4f0824f6a570380792e1835
6789 F20101119_AAAFGY tilghman_m_Page_139thm.jpg
cf146740e6aa36c0f1537d073aea6dc0
8bbccf04e5c5cd749f80b76ee2656dae84aa724c
18881 F20101119_AAAFZB tilghman_m_Page_075.jp2
39d799aae9a8e17e603ab0c27534ad55
1a130c138792ee294f90e6367dae1eabdbfc83d5
F20101119_AAAGDR tilghman_m_Page_184.tif
3d99e90a48f767c866744939459957c9
d043ee0e7bf1ec348f049afe85dcb969667592bb
104314 F20101119_AAAFZC tilghman_m_Page_077.jp2
d0de4c9af4d1e6db9fe4337d8286f160
9cc3bd714e00305b286d97dc9e5fe50e85be1820
F20101119_AAAGDS tilghman_m_Page_185.tif
9ceb10fe6b3381487779b5372747b799
23f866e9fb6f0235c1f55f64eac13db90c29544a
113486 F20101119_AAAFGZ tilghman_m_Page_144.jp2
4627b1ebf3e0183513264a2e3d93b93f
ab8f37fbe7624322e9d3929d1658fd979c37c36c
718787 F20101119_AAAFZD tilghman_m_Page_080.jp2
df9a85618405cdf39abf26c4e206a5ff
c22ab83732807c94da30e1422d6ba28db79ce84c
F20101119_AAAGDT tilghman_m_Page_187.tif
c1e74fe1e2c56df983fdefadd0f40589
10958608ba83c8232b92454e74ec1214752863c4
104168 F20101119_AAAFZE tilghman_m_Page_081.jp2
e98e919357979fab2820e6eb90e5bfe3
815f25d91dbf1c23f226dc6abfe50f940089cabc
F20101119_AAAGDU tilghman_m_Page_191.tif
5eed15eb9000780002d505067ab6e387
4f349763d8d3161c8100c37bbf16abd8a34b4b3d
33520 F20101119_AAAEPA tilghman_m_Page_094.QC.jpg
0a0a029de9ae4ad65b73965763b53638
4c65a46a7158641b9a52ea115abf81816cbc346d
736670 F20101119_AAAFZF tilghman_m_Page_082.jp2
22b28aa627528160cfb8467635819190
5a021f6b53c195af95d246c75da39a7633b9a345
F20101119_AAAGDV tilghman_m_Page_192.tif
41e441994543c1af16f45c5f1351809b
fcdcd4d00d7bedf849a54cb308872ad5bb014151
64275 F20101119_AAAEPB tilghman_m_Page_214.jp2
3f242245389b254e028c12226ccddb10
e59e80492fda9aaf5b6c9c42795cea5149ab0087
708172 F20101119_AAAFZG tilghman_m_Page_083.jp2
17cba6287ef65a67680c3d23e24ca04b
de168fc6cb4b0142dd8f4e2f1e80e195f4bd8e1c
F20101119_AAAGDW tilghman_m_Page_193.tif
c6f8ff223a0f7e4b8f29cd1692d304ea
d26ff54c2857bbc7358fa963451c68bf3e7ecae5
100317 F20101119_AAAEPC tilghman_m_Page_024.jpg
fd09fbb0b5931d8b7c762d2333d38e3b
747db5f57e9555b422e5985d167e2468abcddc15
762865 F20101119_AAAFZH tilghman_m_Page_088.jp2
77bf83b717252051d14009004b450478
22aecc7421139ab2750164708475c7efed44b189
F20101119_AAAGDX tilghman_m_Page_195.tif
0587be0c6cad2ad95087f8eede2fc183
3330dc8e947ceede9c707ac3f39f13d3405e9c6d
93340 F20101119_AAAEPD tilghman_m_Page_204.jp2
48e3911b72fffe56094c2111e3c14100
091037fe032929a8dcb49ec1fc527622e3c999fc
110545 F20101119_AAAFZI tilghman_m_Page_089.jp2
e3ff5a2911aa8f1e0e9de5c14a6b5f68
ee13f4426818f610248231d90c52422227cfe370
F20101119_AAAGDY tilghman_m_Page_198.tif
c658a6ee73a15cc2c8051b6605441d38
6585410146c9484d8710b482ec5d65d3449cd783
41701 F20101119_AAAEPE tilghman_m_Page_232.jpg
e561dc9e47231f34cff323de569e1b4d
475833f0fffba59b36936770bb90a0ea88169afe
107780 F20101119_AAAFZJ tilghman_m_Page_090.jp2
79a47c4fd12943372c31d7e241e664ca
27956e74d6fa59cba33a94d60d8868f4a4ea3c03
F20101119_AAAGDZ tilghman_m_Page_199.tif
ee77ebe0fb89fb03c3704fdb2d5fc59e
f1b7f5b8d143f656e5cfdd6771724b20c99c8f90
6345 F20101119_AAAEPF tilghman_m_Page_169thm.jpg
cb19c0dc571aa56de23c7055134a60ed
3bf6b3435b8ab0cbbe36d7ceac6c66c9d42a4ecf
107883 F20101119_AAAFZK tilghman_m_Page_097.jp2
3a9336bc815dfee5c9a80565debcf3c2
92ab8d5da22c3e171b09b811e2b9668730d11194
F20101119_AAAEPG tilghman_m_Page_135.tif
bc56c51b1d69e25fa62798564f87a1da
8e4fbe33a5b2b5b1b4f4d3ff64339372b9ab1871
642940 F20101119_AAAFZL tilghman_m_Page_101.jp2
73559a4e58f2847a69cadbde59fd9526
20f426c27e2d4d303761f7c97560c7323b9f5ed2
18316 F20101119_AAAEPH tilghman_m_Page_231.jpg
9c6c5af9af1f652edeacbe627dc219da
e1ce0ff620d16d89b96a2b765af3012ab5305b44
142069 F20101119_AAAFMA tilghman_m_Page_229.jpg
51a45e5837f26b570e83d67c445faf55
2fba0de73d63991dae305f9d9d41c80b884bffff
112177 F20101119_AAAFZM tilghman_m_Page_105.jp2
cdfcb826c7db01b9b49a10bb48f78838
11c8213838221c51fab7102759a3ca528abf8886
828 F20101119_AAAEPI tilghman_m_Page_017.txt
80b6c36994781d131884c0c33c54191a
df1f8c0bb40ae3d21f56e0f5f5497668ba1b8423
30356 F20101119_AAAFMB tilghman_m_Page_133.QC.jpg
e3e5f39553c3237955b71fa40cc29e4a
9f37703733cb4371a12f54fc183779a2563dd2e5
133268 F20101119_AAAFZN tilghman_m_Page_106.jp2
ae1661e22b43c7ab2553ec17becdc2f8
f0033fdcbf6d3c9601804b829e68f7d0d80ddc39
105076 F20101119_AAAEPJ tilghman_m_Page_071.jp2
f3f928037343a710d4a45775241df9d7
57eb51dd02058b489dc851e26c67dcd294a2451a
2045 F20101119_AAAFMC tilghman_m_Page_148.txt
c22bd967944e5dc66373af6c636a876d
7c52ec6c9ecc260b7b3bcc7a9c1133414437e13f
104588 F20101119_AAAFZO tilghman_m_Page_110.jp2
bd24e9f714ba6b03f75f19010c52d3ed
da94978b382d2b54168517eecb084865e39d0316
102022 F20101119_AAAEPK tilghman_m_Page_020.jp2
75656da9268328541453b1513b961d09
56282949b54b1cd6170d2c344bcc37cf2cb3f2f3
140076 F20101119_AAAFMD tilghman_m_Page_167.jpg
f22452aefb8e71ade7a5915620fff005
da223b7cf4db4f645b6e9f4e5cfde4e2081038b5
115760 F20101119_AAAFZP tilghman_m_Page_111.jp2
9cd711cf8af15ed165955eae53a28ac2
448975e428f83eb0366b9ee796ae63a2c5be44b7
8094 F20101119_AAAEPL tilghman_m_Page_141thm.jpg
d6c40c118830aa90eb536d0b68ef9733
24835499236c6999928dc5ee5afeb4ac713540cc
104646 F20101119_AAAFME tilghman_m_Page_147.jpg
d63b1f3dfa776f72c55c0892bb10216c
63a24839342b3381b3e5dfba5ae5aa1b0725723e
125488 F20101119_AAAFZQ tilghman_m_Page_112.jp2
831680de1c60b85ef92992cfa53ed6b4
16d9b35491ade601d7cc17ba3f8a7356fd3962c9
F20101119_AAAEPM tilghman_m_Page_082.tif
d4d842cd774babe8caee13566cf6a580
f96f9b161749779b0c872339c5f16b8737326639
108910 F20101119_AAAFMF tilghman_m_Page_153.jp2
efa5b72e82617581d41594d1f277d05d
b479721600683445768d1fa336dee898ab1ab8f5
120806 F20101119_AAAFZR tilghman_m_Page_113.jp2
df105c05700591944883b02cfa346057
f0e66e309f2a2e6332bb89fd99064b71481c743c
5727 F20101119_AAAEPN tilghman_m_Page_008thm.jpg
0bb291f43dbb299a2ff4bf9b53120286
ab18e4940d724c68a4d53bc1d61006bf24ef1a33
98929 F20101119_AAAFMG tilghman_m_Page_154.jp2
38f82761991e3d80edf9f990077e4ce2
573fb85c4693c4aa35b1a68b738b7ca1f78bc67a
1924 F20101119_AAAGJA tilghman_m_Page_073.txt
75576e7d392e35bb6100be021d31a91e
618a4306b30801c31286785160c53bad2d581f21
841240 F20101119_AAAFZS tilghman_m_Page_114.jp2
18784cea485f3c47cd6ee96be29b83d2
ecf813f2cd09754e2cc045b6a9ed996d84cb4c48
1051967 F20101119_AAAEPO tilghman_m_Page_007.jp2
bf11228c8aec2c108368708da94b8bbb
677ca57e610953d1cf26698f5c3f04a37eaba82e
107603 F20101119_AAAFMH tilghman_m_Page_091.jp2
fea386b0da69ca0227896d6b850733f6
348bce6cf460e25982dc62cc1e7d77b62c39afca
1770 F20101119_AAAGJB tilghman_m_Page_079.txt
20b14cfa4d9845399e726912d5b70753
0ae34ef968f03a1453a538d13f3bba17087b3854
131514 F20101119_AAAFZT tilghman_m_Page_115.jp2
ceee338e2e7f4b742a97ab2329287c9f
db1172d672072d4a05085edcd364ae2e4cff767f
3873 F20101119_AAAEPP tilghman_m_Page_206.txt
2a3ecf90b079fd0b241a5c7c7736b29d
6e968487d396d7628667825b60d60f42559e5d5e
51679 F20101119_AAAFMI tilghman_m_Page_153.pro
69ace74476b5b48c34167fa6092a9da1
f9072cf545e36b84954bd5339bbc2def5a096ca4
1215 F20101119_AAAGJC tilghman_m_Page_080.txt
414eb1b3353f056bcd9d83e9bfba8e3a
f515f8fd0d4b85fb93377e8f19d544cc51bd9757
124053 F20101119_AAAFZU tilghman_m_Page_125.jp2
64ec317ed6265e5a9665023c5ffdd869
beacd01e82335a64b8a005f6b04feb96c90909cf
810 F20101119_AAAEPQ tilghman_m_Page_004.txt
5de14beef2cbb99d0acb445c82abd9f3
2eb9dadfaf0e7bdc1a4de0c35a3bebe9ad7c4752
5562 F20101119_AAAFMJ tilghman_m_Page_210thm.jpg
a5e6760a693db983a8d9589e8f105282
9df09a5f35c7b79893e96ff5294d0e4f1fef3e09
1389 F20101119_AAAGJD tilghman_m_Page_082.txt
ee8606f73cf53c4dbb4383aa6bc0395f
a46ba6e5025eeb76cf394daabf5ababa663f017d
122685 F20101119_AAAFZV tilghman_m_Page_130.jp2
3faf610769a168f6d416087cb26dfe01
cab6897272a799062972f411c8182e4b67e0febd
99339 F20101119_AAAEPR tilghman_m_Page_040.jp2
d1ffa60b09f7a6faf6bb91e80ddbc7f0
aa7077f48b42cb191b7a6949251e59c6d03d9744
101106 F20101119_AAAFMK tilghman_m_Page_160.jpg
0f145637951c034129392c1f491cee1a
a1476487e1ab4500edd42d362b25e88ff04d5ddc
1360 F20101119_AAAGJE tilghman_m_Page_083.txt
ee3e296926041ead1bfa2142d55b60a7
3252263bb67bee09b76ef376c2bffd150dd7ba1d
823899 F20101119_AAAFZW tilghman_m_Page_134.jp2
6a7dac0cbce9ed6e6f27b90e9ce52ac1
47f2b16981c7a422aa32773707a830a41b9af3d5
101245 F20101119_AAAEPS tilghman_m_Page_044.jpg
ab6bc085b9a5a44ed5235e2c718e9d7b
8f60e65e18e63c9407809da836ed7709b54cef1d
F20101119_AAAFML tilghman_m_Page_038.tif
b4721ca4bf187d953f00a3cb5790fb80
97a33660cf549ad37d18b5da0910d1e6d87c6c13
1336 F20101119_AAAGJF tilghman_m_Page_084.txt
eaa096f063e6859f34da8448d6f3c711
af3f874c427b6ffa648d0ce40fa2e80b8daeecf5
824005 F20101119_AAAFZX tilghman_m_Page_137.jp2
13729b1f2350bf22199967db691c4154
c2d9fd78544027dcd72658b09d127514da9b19ed
77078 F20101119_AAAEPT tilghman_m_Page_172.pro
d2934337230917f0dbb7b32afa1cdc21
d27d7e164f16bbd6cdde7a69e0f666b76a629da0
2066 F20101119_AAAFMM tilghman_m_Page_030.txt
c1ff838c00c90c3e7905a2e983c5de30
c21613412f240ec05979a240c44557d83e672600
1533 F20101119_AAAGJG tilghman_m_Page_087.txt
393811a32ff46be2c784ed4dd4d19d0b
38a20f6278d3aa6e3a5b9b67aa90b70f36648f70
110802 F20101119_AAAFZY tilghman_m_Page_138.jp2
eb9e0684e7866ea2eaa4f97fdebb8526
1376e0482a811bf9d7064110e6b70eeef7227bda
8697 F20101119_AAAEPU tilghman_m_Page_098thm.jpg
13dabd465d6db7b7f407d6636b8473e5
d1ec252d0a3751896863b5febeac07a4757c1a35
108191 F20101119_AAAFMN tilghman_m_Page_121.jpg
3a37a27b9b2aef77db6d9c0f9a7cf709
8b2eb78baa41b716226cce587d080cc4d9ec2911
1460 F20101119_AAAGJH tilghman_m_Page_088.txt
2d652974470700dff62b18c766c58d55
87e1b625a6d0267c7cf039d4911638053f41fed8
104099 F20101119_AAAFZZ tilghman_m_Page_141.jp2
88c7d7d41c7f7e05fb5b2fc98766c7a5
82f5317a052607d0a10bf0e56a012f4b85c429e5
1377 F20101119_AAAEPV tilghman_m_Page_095.txt
70b2d6edcf9b69bc421cfc9df6ab8007
8e2ef16956b90a39574b004030ba85be554424d3
1760 F20101119_AAAFMO tilghman_m_Page_076.txt
080afd00a38295cfbfa4b87f394f153f
317aff94b5455e27f4f8e38f7c7dddf8d24dde9d
1937 F20101119_AAAGJI tilghman_m_Page_093.txt
a8e727d6f31d73e85a88ad76109a5034
147ab8841e816a6fdd4a85c6318a48a8dad75362
34277 F20101119_AAAEPW tilghman_m_Page_042.QC.jpg
e8ae81ce1710e782b1e18817719bddc3
90046ed5d96bd32b874eba0679c5c55120ff89d5
109365 F20101119_AAAFMP tilghman_m_Page_042.jp2
370714071325ada3a3f77d40cbca222d
270bc10bb5a2548278bcf52ba6eaa890a6b2cedc
F20101119_AAAGJJ tilghman_m_Page_094.txt
c67076a92187b2119223eda55909d375
f5a0ec1b140b58c22a7f810105d5304d00ab4294
135837 F20101119_AAAFMQ tilghman_m_Page_230.jpg
7332ddc59ac3298230728b64784fd717
77c19809961cb37c5726ebf0a11c5ba517fd7e56
1958 F20101119_AAAGJK tilghman_m_Page_096.txt
3706ad39c0bd188e282a8742f5442c58
f004a337073059f3df5a4faa6fe10507ca36d0df
8340 F20101119_AAAEPX tilghman_m_Page_133thm.jpg
de929def94573981e12fa9bb25a67cf0
de6d96587d60ed1e0ce7f8c7a816c5cd1a30beef
37191 F20101119_AAAFMR tilghman_m_Page_172.QC.jpg
5096af5bc139f5a0a22516d6245ce2d3
92df4ebe82b02d41e8b97b642b2b7f4d89e9f92d
F20101119_AAAGJL tilghman_m_Page_097.txt
e74613cb238a6bcefd2a616e3fb96b46
e1a1aedee77dfdb9fa4b80add9824a3f0470ec04
F20101119_AAAEPY tilghman_m_Page_227.tif
72eeb2571583d483df3729cc299306c6
8503b2265d143a77700516642e5a02698379ec4a
67055 F20101119_AAAFMS tilghman_m_Page_119.pro
53c1b370acd7daf2d42690b12e5a50a4
c7cfee0d24afabf24f3934c8cb7cbad59116e310
2628 F20101119_AAAGJM tilghman_m_Page_099.txt
686a39ad532b6cb783327c3eab4920aa
583519003ef2b93d9bf7adef8d16f054a6a89b11
17103 F20101119_AAAEPZ tilghman_m_Page_061.jpg
e5779dcb6ba08a8664ff5443d81f5c6a
ef32f31007b938e3c225c5ac99f6e52361d34007
2461 F20101119_AAAGJN tilghman_m_Page_105.txt
4a344d3e9667b826a08a77c01b7d3497
f1d9f67a530e7b843700a2f757f970cc6b28e0e2
79212 F20101119_AAAFMT tilghman_m_Page_212.jpg
09f6fc8cd6b3f6f9f1ca31b1109ead69
262256dd68574535700b800816d6c284f6a3191c
1931 F20101119_AAAGJO tilghman_m_Page_110.txt
7b10c9fb24b951f395148258342b607d
e1540bc39d7923ba20a9e84f9a66b17fbffcbed4
29501 F20101119_AAAFMU tilghman_m_Page_195.QC.jpg
2e903c822af3d3ff683098a7a78cec4d
8a28ca31778556cdd84873ef0d17626e1cc8c914
F20101119_AAAFMV tilghman_m_Page_070.tif
87df73c03f4e9a0b77f070b2396f1367
1892302bfe60b7863ee095bd7934fc0e49868731
1419 F20101119_AAAGJP tilghman_m_Page_114.txt
26645e1fc96d8f8d880374ef5f07e8fa
8fc9bc22bcb17a17d72ef9706a53475302920343
44929 F20101119_AAAFMW tilghman_m_Page_040.pro
5503ecdfd127e12c9f2f4ffb14376ce8
deb2ff1c17dd3eef7782006093d5b0a9e8271f8a
2807 F20101119_AAAGJQ tilghman_m_Page_115.txt
c3a71fb2846ae6edf8b48ba44ea878fe
2963bc1a9f3eeb85d0f3d2e05476b33ee67ec32c
1229 F20101119_AAAFMX tilghman_m_Page_002.pro
b704e780f11b4dfe9c59e23e4b50f4b8
5fcbb7f768b5b91138936b659b394b778e9efa40
1789 F20101119_AAAGJR tilghman_m_Page_116.txt
5f54aaddf70023b46248686a9b2ab299
e4aa512579091f502fd13dd44e3cd5f39b078a36
F20101119_AAAFMY tilghman_m_Page_208.tif
7fce30de12cf3e82ceead345929044a1
8201077032b2b77b65e91d85504f57eabc5ad81c
3937 F20101119_AAAGJS tilghman_m_Page_119.txt
4acca3abdc5006483254c8513c657485
c4540f7dfaeb657f69a03b6419c3189c241bd7f0
87126 F20101119_AAAFMZ tilghman_m_Page_185.pro
5a82208431b177bc5f24c90c0668d7ae
3bfe5e7889d7138c726fc53ef530a04dad94f07f
2556 F20101119_AAAGJT tilghman_m_Page_120.txt
f91b42d2c9edfd6759b691b5b88261d5
76a3ebf3d1fdfd730f61777bcfb0644f8fec29d9
2753 F20101119_AAAGJU tilghman_m_Page_122.txt
dc0578d0ee6e3da678352a5c5696d1ec
873a995d84c6585a6c7b1a9bfc0c5aa0cbc16b46
18729 F20101119_AAAEVA tilghman_m_Page_232.pro
f37faf06e69e8382493c1b0c152218a3
f4eedecf7ee3dbfdb85b92104eec4db48815e3d0
1349 F20101119_AAAGJV tilghman_m_Page_123.txt
7384471fef9ae790d985ac3aa39489ce
edcc817292e4687b2f94dc02baba94f1ee27678e
19089 F20101119_AAAEVB tilghman_m_Page_209.jp2
ae0d3bc9ed18a3b58a281ab93ef0c0aa
d9233dfac2913c07940419c485863fed094ed34a
1342 F20101119_AAAGJW tilghman_m_Page_124.txt
100a42a022cb9f0cf8391a2764e8c556
906743156a900cfaf08ac5c39271be1e0d93c659
794102 F20101119_AAAEVC tilghman_m_Page_095.jp2
6d7f2297e2697b10cae09e1d71117136
d09f6070ee8d20a2043f6b202345f4e3efd8a06e
2157 F20101119_AAAGJX tilghman_m_Page_126.txt
8013d04cb34f16e7fdb9c4a820e93936
73e14f285920a5e13287d7a1d1753fe5237a8100
31574 F20101119_AAAEVD tilghman_m_Page_060.QC.jpg
ac9bfda2be9244a72dd3c391c6a43dae
22c15da90937dbed0232a3bea68c7df88b04fc2b
1900 F20101119_AAAGJY tilghman_m_Page_127.txt
e8d81e8764d133a3d3d12b63396ddfae
2af2d4c15e8564055823af484394e9135933fcd3
7351 F20101119_AAAEVE tilghman_m_Page_132thm.jpg
baa41fe6cd04f3a66d7eaff697821f06
5b7c49c18362d59b37d65c1845c8baaf2d7ec231
1967 F20101119_AAAGJZ tilghman_m_Page_128.txt
4642e73e4184a8f5b04ee0258bd42a33
2a5d80babebe9108b2bac3ff8f518196984f9cb4
16761 F20101119_AAAEVF tilghman_m_Page_035.pro
d08d20bc8ecdb39ba216f583423806ea
ceadfe3fdac73ddd7ad1a761174b53f17fd5bfc1
30522 F20101119_AAAEVG tilghman_m_Page_040.QC.jpg
ccfa17e372d1a3042868549b9af8aa54
7ee2da51c2e2644237b67086c2019dfd5ca4085c
F20101119_AAAEVH tilghman_m_Page_175.tif
710659aac8ea9f09476dc0ee8df56f59
7bec5737c8085d851df8608b4842d496260ec196
49929 F20101119_AAAFSA tilghman_m_Page_021.pro
fadfbe38eb83eaac3549ead4c83b8e8e
04e8b8a8083f137968faa888679f26fa531dbcc2
F20101119_AAAEVI tilghman_m_Page_167.tif
6f336c720df1e066d82e12ffec14888f
e811a7ed84fd2870acfe21b83e97f8bf5bfc5594
F20101119_AAAFSB tilghman_m_Page_050.tif
0b5d32c96eadc9594a9fe194b09b8210
a90529ac27875a716d8f8380aa4d0af32d5b5468
77556 F20101119_AAAEVJ tilghman_m_Page_080.jpg
545a5f95e917e9729ba90c994fe13288
10a764cdb7d46d72295b43daebf53a935a9b4f7e
121315 F20101119_AAAFSC tilghman_m_Page_122.jpg
09b97980096783129363119967e325c2
26a4143c24236f93a41015510b6a3c098e90fb4a
34548 F20101119_AAAEVK tilghman_m_Page_159.QC.jpg
51c646c7f23a9e5f070c038372192470
c22426aef758947c611ee67c94cf0627f07d3d0e
349 F20101119_AAAFSD tilghman_m_Page_075.txt
a4e3807b5c62dad1f8a4f12777967fa5
9a0d0e51ae1867877903734d6cd6b399b48b04e3
24197 F20101119_AAAEVL tilghman_m_Page_101.QC.jpg
de0ce90a7a707d4a7d3a4c7d533d351e
353218961ad1d5243256a2da31904101401977f7
5625 F20101119_AAAFSE tilghman_m_Page_216thm.jpg
2ea259a09eaba03434a1281de6714513
bfab4cde89d6f5a47da190e6659a2b633db02e48
124177 F20101119_AAAEVM tilghman_m_Page_181.jpg
1c23151f6391eb89d84dee2cbce7f545
5c4117dfd7fccbd53374562990c70ad6c54de796
4519 F20101119_AAAFSF tilghman_m_Page_197thm.jpg
ba41389f5995ea9433d3011f7cf97a34
02126bdde45800bd587f4f9379b2a4ca47015426
919 F20101119_AAAEVN tilghman_m_Page_194.txt
86e2a724d47d036707e80e62fb01580a
05f9d21da9d7d4330f8647518d86ed01db78a8ac
F20101119_AAAFSG tilghman_m_Page_075.tif
fe5c8605d48ec12019b67b54b61426b5
380161c9d0d02f96c9430bc68f9d412bd04d902c
36665 F20101119_AAAEVO tilghman_m_Page_187.QC.jpg
6606181ce99aadec91cb6d7b00b611c3
6a2c8b7cbd396fc4bffd62b846c0235043499069
26944 F20101119_AAAFSH tilghman_m_Page_225.jpg
503d3ff0c47a0907ab2515a6c08327bd
0013844d67cb23e8e25b9dbc43ecd57b70aa24fd
33586 F20101119_AAAGPA tilghman_m_Page_108.QC.jpg
00e94cc9f58492dd4196445bf427a367
597c2d893313fd245261dc3f1bf5c8915888a8df
1574 F20101119_AAAEVP tilghman_m_Page_085.txt
7ca68bf276ea29f5f30cb43d40d8b00c
d97d25726f7f7f7b12555bbd5fb85426b5443ced
F20101119_AAAFSI tilghman_m_Page_154.tif
792d46c690ce2b65c39798774f0eb3ba
47c34b26ba560e4abf599fec3ad5a70fa6e9580a
7106 F20101119_AAAGPB tilghman_m_Page_109thm.jpg
397999080c186ebb66e2dc0afd203764
9dacbed7fa44424ee79827572ec83f5a84bbdd62
106082 F20101119_AAAEVQ tilghman_m_Page_028.jp2
57271608aaa9210d6164245a27a6fd0a
2c072e405a7a166126f9617b81cf844fbd6e9f8f
87855 F20101119_AAAFSJ tilghman_m_Page_022.jp2
7d6eb3612f25689a7120f372cfec79d7
116cac8100bada2ab14c2effec8f10fdec04ce41
26832 F20101119_AAAGPC tilghman_m_Page_109.QC.jpg
301bd818c398106a7b2d3d6737bc46fa
db5f92f7f978dde94e5c999b3a6fb4ac9f1e9374
1414 F20101119_AAAEVR tilghman_m_Page_036.txt
efff7d9d05dd94b6f6cffd365235c42d
66ec6677cc0474a1b0de5bcf1617e38686932f9a
38718 F20101119_AAAFSK tilghman_m_Page_221.jpg
69bb34f13e9874d97fac97cbc6a34011
613ef07229515ae104ea6bf43a9f6cbd44e19b92
33237 F20101119_AAAGPD tilghman_m_Page_110.QC.jpg
64c702c475243d1df686a385af5f7e98
f8b1da1355eef445d5a2a4db4b66f9e8e7eb1685
7489 F20101119_AAAFFA tilghman_m_Page_007thm.jpg
f408e07f18c19106e8cb059b1cf56fc6
125e24639369020a5cbfb9de3ef95d98b1e7aa16
F20101119_AAAEVS tilghman_m_Page_010.jp2
33ec9d3315f2777619484eef5cf1aeea
cf718b1686e0cff63ff39bcec2e66854b2aad88b
32274 F20101119_AAAFSL tilghman_m_Page_197.pro
cc9530f7d496884b18d07eaad3afb098
29a9c1113a036ec5e22f91df1e64b78a6afcad3f
8635 F20101119_AAAGPE tilghman_m_Page_111thm.jpg
f296e86b162fe6f994c349d93d5020dd
af50beef2e46942717b66b369579fc3dbe4380e8
30953 F20101119_AAAFFB tilghman_m_Page_204.QC.jpg
1711b4552813627810a0b8f45dd96039
adce23ca1c26a21d00944586b183635fcb8e69c1
101851 F20101119_AAAEVT tilghman_m_Page_161.jpg
ec231542538e0410a5ad2fed96a0f17e
133d7727ec4690deae53542b215226d0b5f8de0a
107967 F20101119_AAAFSM tilghman_m_Page_007.pro
985a0a63adc0660fcc7a3d42ab61ba2c
f6086389fe9340d3fddd0fd4594f89c2b3bfaf40
34737 F20101119_AAAGPF tilghman_m_Page_111.QC.jpg
54af30503225d3256f18515801eff8ea
75da37779fe944cf9ae60ec2ceea29dc0a8d9ba2
8586 F20101119_AAAFFC tilghman_m_Page_144thm.jpg
20779cb60a573cb8ffd36defcaef8b90
4df32a23cf0d4d7c1cf27b4e93192444ca249d4e
109013 F20101119_AAAEVU tilghman_m_Page_048.jp2
2473f328189845d0ea9e7c1f089d388f
4c09ccae2fad8218f577e23ebd59d611dd8afef2
104804 F20101119_AAAFSN tilghman_m_Page_050.jpg
cbfd28ac66ba6924b451d1e310557b44
c1ab81f6a9112d9b31068806b33e6d022934c50b
36847 F20101119_AAAGPG tilghman_m_Page_112.QC.jpg
360d2a43f0e7e2d23c46709a5351cb59
ff9bec01ff47fd6b081a17ae45061b9614821401
7003 F20101119_AAAFFD tilghman_m_Page_182.QC.jpg
8366c17e7b0d1f1f14316dfbfea59e6a
dc2c9101d401bc1903688886c176f47ab33abec0
2016 F20101119_AAAEVV tilghman_m_Page_041.txt
d3462aecfd61e00cfc812946026f0742
10766d602e2b49d948895ef40834115f05963a3d
69782 F20101119_AAAFSO tilghman_m_Page_171.jp2
7056a9c99519b75ea7dcea83a07d53be
96e5122cfeae41febc82adf086cb443b7c719447
27247 F20101119_AAAGPH tilghman_m_Page_114.QC.jpg
efcb29f58338dd1d76fc08f1222f0a95
08f79a3d2ad929bea983a1199464c4870a27f44e
108536 F20101119_AAAFFE tilghman_m_Page_181.jp2
45458472184ebbeb4374c7cc80100c6c
9f74b6b5f1efe73d3c7022dde3fdc57275f067bb
40262 F20101119_AAAEVW tilghman_m_Page_022.pro
06ec85c818f647481df3a09ea3ba853b
15293f9dcea1a9421582f5d1d9ea79bc4a9f67c7
3250 F20101119_AAAFSP tilghman_m_Page_011.txt
1355dbe515a1afd27b187214487284ec
bfe3b0e03b188fca0c5a19b48215a1c2aabad890
37602 F20101119_AAAGPI tilghman_m_Page_115.QC.jpg
13e725c142e5723d8adbdf7e53be7635
78db0d978270d29d31ba60afa868095ad366eec7
31921 F20101119_AAAFFF tilghman_m_Page_019.QC.jpg
4c4b7d08cd31f596e9b59360d8d8cc05
491f9918097fbc2c0b67234a39ffb420949043e7
2265429 F20101119_AAAEVX tilghman_m.pdf
af53b16e09dcde17ffa4b9c3307399fa
da2766fa9bd6a4b13e595fb2407671f17b13a9bc
9466 F20101119_AAAFSQ tilghman_m_Page_184.QC.jpg
b7b28e2391e9c1c49d6dd54b91a270c5
dc261d94b3836cfcebe2c261d64a007edd6010d4
8076 F20101119_AAAGPJ tilghman_m_Page_116thm.jpg
bdddbccbf700cfce10c490b7f69c62d5
86948ae71a2b0d0da0fe3b373e80387036165b08
119061 F20101119_AAAFFG tilghman_m_Page_098.jp2
69fba70360657f1259d5f0ec722d50d0
1bc9602f472dfd0c939408a1534dac3366163680
31301 F20101119_AAAEVY tilghman_m_Page_141.QC.jpg
a9db9da13ee303d99398a754c927d90a
4d3db0eb9f12c0a37d0eacf72a62ba87cb5903af
F20101119_AAAFSR tilghman_m_Page_056.tif
c48c5a6bd7bd75f337fd2a783d5c52a1
e6aae785de445027cd5bea0406d60b5f84e95857
7803 F20101119_AAAGPK tilghman_m_Page_118thm.jpg
ee61fc95c298fbbecb815a5f7218d4ff
89503fd6badbf38d1bdf5a3d4f8c5e515d0171a0
1978 F20101119_AAAFFH tilghman_m_Page_055.txt
d5d9df3af52ddb93fe49570f16dd4c42
196f5ed709ebd1fbcacd94270a664c55770e2757
2523 F20101119_AAAEVZ tilghman_m_Page_229.txt
94c6203392aea0c620b56ebef981330b
b3880687e1ca86c6aaf14351821ed78aa35c99be
F20101119_AAAGCA tilghman_m_Page_035.tif
2ba7866b123ab6663decb32990a66f54
18f0af5cdbffd6622f121a93c043dcdaef2fa300
34780 F20101119_AAAFSS tilghman_m_Page_016.pro
4ebfc9a77cfef3a532077a8c5d2af12e
d7cd5f933b2176f48f81fd4b7cef94e9f96e0699
30606 F20101119_AAAGPL tilghman_m_Page_118.QC.jpg
2ac5e1b17a76093e84dd980f16b10456
9f7a40dbd25c776492f9af91634441c9165d54be
108413 F20101119_AAAFFI tilghman_m_Page_019.jp2
cbaef505b423187795ae80fb357fb0c0
a6561cb267b623ef3dc8ef8d4a66cf3cb6f1832d
F20101119_AAAGCB tilghman_m_Page_036.tif
700485dc0e61e94a92ef8466c33d974c
f2c4bade2b4df2665e31793fed6e51943b5c7b1e
7974 F20101119_AAAFST tilghman_m_Page_019thm.jpg
f615298a0e1b14df2dff1cb3a625308c
dea4802308eb16dfcb14806aea6f47be4f745966
9269 F20101119_AAAGPM tilghman_m_Page_119thm.jpg
d4b63ccd915823e7068ec86e063ba4f6
cafa2d93e9ab222f937fc10bf636d0baae746101
22303 F20101119_AAAFFJ tilghman_m_Page_177.jp2
9353d361bfa827c900f23e4382153777
b31f7a9a6438fb417e6f4c3453ce5e154084c20c
F20101119_AAAGCC tilghman_m_Page_040.tif
cab5debd6d2959cd7c8c3be6b252bee7
76eea00bc0bf58005b64af7eb45406b11544acdf
107357 F20101119_AAAFSU tilghman_m_Page_059.jpg
61620e4d162e3dbef7951fde34c49244
f9d590aa9dfc59677810bd1b99e83e0244509bcf
38818 F20101119_AAAGPN tilghman_m_Page_119.QC.jpg
f74c1811cfb7604911d1e9bbcdd75eb5
0d74eb84b9d1ec8b285eba11f93e7d4cbc8c5f6e
105201 F20101119_AAAFFK tilghman_m_Page_159.jpg
26722618789518f7ae2678b81080d2d1
01e1500c6b616ada0439773d129805e3b55da7f6
F20101119_AAAGCD tilghman_m_Page_044.tif
65aab29d793865221a25cabec539d283
e29c1d200f0acaa6d8a8e1f3cfbe59de5d221fe4
F20101119_AAAFSV tilghman_m_Page_011.tif
2974d1da38a398e994b1c311f69eeb48
8c9a5154cd886ec60d49f9e0c858c6c80e19eb93
8262 F20101119_AAAGPO tilghman_m_Page_120thm.jpg
30f8cbf67724587995766558843ae8c8
38d4481cd47188910bdc772ec46ee012219ae97e
8897 F20101119_AAAEIQ tilghman_m_Page_209.pro
1ba075128e598fabaf16e96f583e5345
71e0edead50d9c4518dd55c42843ba507618c506
35316 F20101119_AAAFFL tilghman_m_Page_058.QC.jpg
73635ca031a3a8594d30c33a40dd6067
f9d8edb1afd3ff9ed013e921bad4fd290a1d15dc
F20101119_AAAGCE tilghman_m_Page_047.tif
589a386e48e7ef327f702bc08b56b4f6
b59bf71ce3f265822f8b3e4584ec3d49d42ebaca
94472 F20101119_AAAFSW tilghman_m_Page_104.jpg
562463fc631337c324662c2752ce26fd
db276b70392133990ba147b1eafed47fd14fb8e7
33494 F20101119_AAAGPP tilghman_m_Page_120.QC.jpg
5ee79d5095501ecf9d863b6eeb08161c
99ff2ac8936448fb562e307c9a8843283f4d99a8
82365 F20101119_AAAEIR tilghman_m_Page_196.pro
04a26876231c534c568fbb4bc37499ae
afc246c9c10217e1c8ac6e29fe75cf2a98f7c3a6
F20101119_AAAGCF tilghman_m_Page_052.tif
25f7a5821c5f9d87a488a4ec7ea3ccb4
710517d8e1f90e181abef883fec32c430cca0aae
115062 F20101119_AAAFSX tilghman_m_Page_105.jpg
653096072720bff9bb030cf420057cea
66d506ff4cacf8f1c2d03b75e637ce1594b66f26
8894 F20101119_AAAGPQ tilghman_m_Page_121thm.jpg
81195c2c0c9a485a5791779b04a8b66f
c4f63e206338467e467192e0b735a6fc6897092e
F20101119_AAAEIS tilghman_m_Page_174.tif
ab19e3eede7ee9fb233684d79b9c7cb0
2fe64fd199f829d8eb373ed69b41c48d4565b08c
31583 F20101119_AAAFFM tilghman_m_Page_053.QC.jpg
0fe2408d6a8b8a86fbf105e339617ff5
7095f70cdbfd64a3da575aaccf8f51f9b3446578
F20101119_AAAGCG tilghman_m_Page_058.tif
04090400698c31713eaf85533f85f2db
739a007953770089b10569511564f8c207bc3c84
F20101119_AAAFSY tilghman_m_Page_044thm.jpg
6bdd0e1c73d0da74b400ddacd9a81d83
275fd8dd50d87b1de7f9f1289de70cc492273e03
9152 F20101119_AAAGPR tilghman_m_Page_122thm.jpg
5632ff51546b215c472f344a483e2619
dde211d291f08e8096d5fffe326a56711788286a
F20101119_AAAEIT tilghman_m_Page_131.tif
ae057a159b754726bcb381f0c0f549ee
c9c900f4e33deaf52cc9ca9be359859f386e2a74
24385 F20101119_AAAFFN tilghman_m_Page_001.jp2
802ce7788d4a3cbd6a716be2d23c54ad
e74174a2d125e067cf31b00572a674d5c5194171
F20101119_AAAGCH tilghman_m_Page_060.tif
571e4358f3b16761e6e07234a9566ba5
db6fcffb4701b7171ea86cd6f4f32b36ae0a7fd9
36804 F20101119_AAAGPS tilghman_m_Page_122.QC.jpg
4730f9a948050557ef69208a372b3ae5
16c95e371ea85ed4799ae8fa0ffeb560c9d7020c
23297 F20101119_AAAEIU tilghman_m_Page_225.pro
a5f314ce8ffde5601f42f86c8bbdd732
2e09691f724d83dcc37556483bebd8093ba28554
117116 F20101119_AAAFFO tilghman_m_Page_219.jpg
1fffd921fad0e68a5c6ccc98f1edeb8d
27f1e2f54505ff091e8a9fe9abaa09e31a1e6235
7812 F20101119_AAAFSZ tilghman_m_Page_077thm.jpg
646c4b932e7f0888493149043150deea
4bb5330a00fbca32811b2d2bedf7d390da1458d9
7827 F20101119_AAAGPT tilghman_m_Page_123thm.jpg
277295f849f158a1812a3603cdd01944
58444be212192f5b405f73e839882d7a2e7a21d9
8405 F20101119_AAAEIV tilghman_m_Page_043thm.jpg
87c91436474d7393b651235cc7d31269
8062a2d9787672aaaf5734eca416180b3ca2eea7
486427 F20101119_AAAFFP tilghman_m_Page_135.jp2
bb20e3eab8cb9785bace2a0a3eb4ead1
4e91f7834c1373aa4554449b1571068a591379d1
F20101119_AAAGCI tilghman_m_Page_066.tif
6538a50a7f93c5ae90b93257cb7fbc23
2d544eaaf6c7ee77d24bac92a4cd265260eda5fb
6773 F20101119_AAAGPU tilghman_m_Page_124thm.jpg
0454c1640fcafcc7064d156faa4ffd48
0a594bbd3f5e70572c22cf80e2b92993ac6b54c5
105279 F20101119_AAAEIW tilghman_m_Page_056.jpg
e5d3fb4fb788be8b55a4c304a91fbec0
70f359b1a21f1d10f85e3d77da51edc86d004b89
1269 F20101119_AAAFFQ tilghman_m_Page_139.txt
8ec051834d351b526b3aa4447420304d
82bde3f57e03dbeafdea8bfedb154f32de08ced3
F20101119_AAAGCJ tilghman_m_Page_071.tif
34758f545788e5b92ef4821eda7be3ab
94c1d1636b73ce1f957b9b8c5d15815b3f6331df
9311 F20101119_AAAEIX tilghman_m_Page_203.QC.jpg
192c53428c0cff188ef372f6be483c82
3abf162df8bb56aac5eff456e45f87a5b0ee8224
2615 F20101119_AAAFFR tilghman_m_Page_100.txt
8e152679f328c24776482bdb335019bd
6c33b355486834c93ca7fc3d829ce99fcb987a92
F20101119_AAAGCK tilghman_m_Page_072.tif
99ea4815000561ad9661788e8df38262
a40f5e3be92530a22f8675d291d12a246c4ffcd1
8299 F20101119_AAAGPV tilghman_m_Page_126thm.jpg
9fd21a20dac4f0529237a3f6d47e8b60
c9e81dc24b198669aac7b2b7309c3165e4899a59
F20101119_AAAEIY tilghman_m_Page_142.tif
063d74d880704e3e1d76d8f231ab3697
b55a78c9ac65c0e5ce3c23a7b028a29aee6877bb
86722 F20101119_AAAFFS tilghman_m_Page_178.jp2
2dc5be365552d2b0e68adb22d15dd779
4359e690fe03e0dcddbdf92b7e78c8c77806170c
F20101119_AAAGCL tilghman_m_Page_073.tif
6903aa8a315098cd5546e45a60158332
6b65b0ddebf3e1a13285f9e3e2622f521a9735e1
32433 F20101119_AAAGPW tilghman_m_Page_126.QC.jpg
8c84570b1c6efc8158063c8d655c2f75
86e83958e8c604af89031c354337b9b4f4aa50be
7611 F20101119_AAAEIZ tilghman_m_Page_060thm.jpg
c9bbfa852118e919c4205ae36c81cc10
f150bcac8a252b9a4f472cda6794e2a703190af7
21242 F20101119_AAAFFT tilghman_m_Page_107.QC.jpg
14fa8ae37047860a79b4daf7f73461ab
dab3761237e231f08b638cbcdd851c3d5238b176
F20101119_AAAGCM tilghman_m_Page_083.tif
ab14aee8cf35d24b1166134cf46e2abd
ec97ea513c33aa93c00b721b78275d4f7c6f28b4
9172 F20101119_AAAGPX tilghman_m_Page_130thm.jpg
755cdc30edd92eeff1866119a83eca58
46de8f32aa90b31828edfa680c4a9400fe42cb7d
30638 F20101119_AAAFFU tilghman_m_Page_154.QC.jpg
392c7e025706e5f0e87e3dd52d5b8ccd
3739b00a110ae1df5262ac64fea0fb68fa1a2a36
F20101119_AAAGCN tilghman_m_Page_084.tif
16ac77080ebe6df6c02faefe71d1d884
734073963990f6622d3c3915365470c1db798bec
7725 F20101119_AAAGPY tilghman_m_Page_131thm.jpg
b0577a044d89acd83f8bc0f206e03956
f56f679db960f9fd0ad02e94f7c533440dc1f988
106893 F20101119_AAAFFV tilghman_m_Page_155.jpg
9d3c5cafdc832aa37b764672359cbdcd
ef6eb6c7c2d2f2f6a8b014a95948849aea394597
F20101119_AAAGCO tilghman_m_Page_085.tif
039504612870cca1182239949c230dae
45bcdcdbf125f46f8786afee55fc56b3ecb33691
28220 F20101119_AAAGPZ tilghman_m_Page_131.QC.jpg
17f5964aab973250f346f8971f192156
7d29879a8b37ddabeed2c0a4d9c3284c918bef8a
5520 F20101119_AAAFFW tilghman_m_Page_075.QC.jpg
12cf095b11abbd1178735483d7951c23
517bc25989553ad7586f14de909e79275778a63f
F20101119_AAAGCP tilghman_m_Page_087.tif
6ab8033a34231069e55b1254011e5866
21339c9529ff57963e900c6a67a8e19fd6ab2e97
F20101119_AAAFFX tilghman_m_Page_109.tif
3c509720e5f3815348ba70f0dd256249
ab9b668c2c228b12cf8a4deda36b4c7e3a6d5498
5837 F20101119_AAAFYA tilghman_m_Page_002.jp2
9e6d89b47189eba454824cdb736dc0bb
8fbf15b27f96c63f80d6408f08077b50ea86ff13
F20101119_AAAGCQ tilghman_m_Page_088.tif
51ba278a313756029a3b84ae06b7c70d
7807ca87becbe16d36c773c80f99e08590efd97f
860 F20101119_AAAFFY tilghman_m_Page_177.txt
753c54a5ee4544ada334f9b044e7f8a5
4a3ae3cd676d2f92d55eac59647d0d03f9735738
5651 F20101119_AAAFYB tilghman_m_Page_003.jp2
e2496ed6dd2bd5209bdadc241ce3329c
5f86054c4d247c6b312ba2cc61d11ef215992d9b
F20101119_AAAGCR tilghman_m_Page_094.tif
9bcbcd01f5e8d0faa280e93b8fe670c3
ecb714252ff8ae8c7e8875ccaf6c782b36c6c6a8
96408 F20101119_AAAFFZ tilghman_m_Page_053.jpg
575c087878d7eb8e549f55baa9177800
7c6f17c5923b7f35540c692eda05e12a21bb6110
1051976 F20101119_AAAFYC tilghman_m_Page_005.jp2
69f24dbeeda80fc5ca2b9dbd6534ff93
ed84cd0b1b879a1726868a6c4cc66ef203b166ab
F20101119_AAAGCS tilghman_m_Page_095.tif
06c8778151553f90077e49de1a75de7e
1c7d6f080dc3e07e41580a35723b550bfa793db2
1051983 F20101119_AAAFYD tilghman_m_Page_006.jp2
84dbff728d74825a843c99afe924e933
592d420965e157222729a889b420d3450ce2fb57
F20101119_AAAGCT tilghman_m_Page_100.tif
164633d05ea85b355034af35aed1f3c0
1af7ac625c3f7c125efa4e85c4a9ca11d0335cec
F20101119_AAAFYE tilghman_m_Page_011.jp2
189759c5cf770a0ff3a40aa47a462b6c
8c4adf77130321204be2fdfa53ac0d5b2ff4e813
F20101119_AAAGCU tilghman_m_Page_102.tif
493e8b963d7251a27ef4c7b244ab4599
e8cceeb60de9715022046a68d1ee69f50fdc09fb
43709 F20101119_AAAEOA tilghman_m_Page_013.jpg
c42f2b933c1c918333605cf487de10c5
fdc1607a80741870c8a77cad0bd5832af1597883
F20101119_AAAFYF tilghman_m_Page_014.jp2
1c2274cb122329d8fd1dd35b2a4024e0
5e757b99f73cb69e0ecc119247c6619b043c5c8e
F20101119_AAAGCV tilghman_m_Page_104.tif
4eac241d88c3763792321b39c2a2370b
5ad1224baa27f147f818f62bb7315c65c3dbfdaf
8164 F20101119_AAAEOB tilghman_m_Page_039thm.jpg
51aedf2f84b2002beb71da001bda5aa2
1b02dffc46c8bcec899cc501fe93331b10d29ace
78641 F20101119_AAAFYG tilghman_m_Page_016.jp2
e37694b07ecfaf0cd0694c6f29a92869
527a09fb6fb05fb0a650f1202803b9ac53fc52a4
F20101119_AAAGCW tilghman_m_Page_106.tif
918a4335b1846bd02d9a0bf1108216b3
c9645df4e117565ba63ac952273af629b38972ec
F20101119_AAAEOC tilghman_m_Page_099.tif
3df2a37bd7c1479c0aee4893bc69c59d
d6311555ab766816fa7e9b7ddce78c734d30f277
107680 F20101119_AAAFYH tilghman_m_Page_024.jp2
31af7f181c22082bef9011274811d9f8
44ce29fb858055d60ffe5fb5c88b1285baed651d
F20101119_AAAGCX tilghman_m_Page_111.tif
427e8bc2e8f9a2b2e97ec5b938df5dcb
61fccc56213202fa52b6af0e119e26b38e27605c
7513 F20101119_AAAEOD tilghman_m_Page_088thm.jpg
21ef3d0607bd0623281432559fa55441
791ea7fb6089b19ea393dd3b9ec26f1abf2ee8e1
101237 F20101119_AAAFYI tilghman_m_Page_031.jp2
9d2844c8942dc9d4265f94bce41055a4
9d61a9e3939c4ec7104dee4dcc3240ec0e9267d0
F20101119_AAAGCY tilghman_m_Page_118.tif
8bdc939cac6e82a823f430192d81d398
b2ed5a7eb5b5ed55ffcedf932520a24c647314ae
55421 F20101119_AAAEOE tilghman_m_Page_217.pro
877ab9855d3fff23916fb365056992fa
edc0b78484612f186bba36d6e99fbbfe41f0234b
768616 F20101119_AAAFYJ tilghman_m_Page_036.jp2
bf46af33d604ff772b69a8ae6862d6d5
8ec45d94466ac3bd18ec37c56e8242f9e5c4dbaf
F20101119_AAAGCZ tilghman_m_Page_121.tif
32943077e843df0545a537c3d3c4fab6
3981e0e43a68814d981a25ba6316c23c194db230
40968 F20101119_AAAEOF tilghman_m_Page_185.QC.jpg
d90a07ca78036497389b72000e5e14c1
2cae2f02ba1d9f9eafc7551191795f59df638e3a
109650 F20101119_AAAFYK tilghman_m_Page_037.jp2
84b30df3d729c839f290c319d8437d72
4ffe957c1efdbccacadaeef1b44061f9a730afbb
8109 F20101119_AAAEOG tilghman_m_Page_128thm.jpg
3820cc102134e4aabeae30434d0230b7
25246bebb0526d60a05250911bb2e5ae88a9c329
108295 F20101119_AAAFYL tilghman_m_Page_039.jp2
3a13ec5d328661e6829598a09df43c3d
da26e9dace9f5181ea686676137670700ab975e0
4804 F20101119_AAAEOH tilghman_m_Page_215thm.jpg
93f6364288585e4b9abbee2c74bc81a7
a2d44fcd3695f4cc98887978992bb8fc9766ccd0
125784 F20101119_AAAFLA tilghman_m_Page_100.jp2
25af910c66aeeace3bec9519dfbe90aa
e3aaf3ddebf456120b07b3ced97e890aa6b600c2
108264 F20101119_AAAFYM tilghman_m_Page_044.jp2
24b3ddb076318196a9550d8383505092
5f32f15f048161c386531e7fea1a1b30123071f1
45632 F20101119_AAAEOI tilghman_m_Page_157.pro
693945608aa118a38c3accdb3efe8c8c
d69a6c8d608eabd0d400b47be016d0c2904ccd99
76038 F20101119_AAAFLB tilghman_m_Page_082.jpg
40b05254e4f7742d9dac0404f7728234
4ba907106d7584d1e0c8186dadff0b4391e107c8
1051984 F20101119_AAAFYN tilghman_m_Page_046.jp2
e5dc63635a89da76837b044c60861723
656b1998319e49c6719eb7bb08abcd57dff00a19
31678 F20101119_AAAEOJ tilghman_m_Page_081.QC.jpg
a0e73629747d3f30ef9d181bf50a9983
9d555360f3822af7b667dc90c2b4c05af6542513
777806 F20101119_AAAFLC tilghman_m_Page_085.jp2
e0bbf93cf97a6ceb6ec0066101c1366a
ce3368b3f641196eaac36e5ccf51c23230f0dc81
112143 F20101119_AAAFYO tilghman_m_Page_047.jp2
38f732b48fe22a13a458af2d4e06a8d3
9cba2b2325d1f1ba0133c6a0a1e7f67cafb252e0
685721 F20101119_AAAEOK tilghman_m_Page_139.jp2
f4625980d4db752311dd0ec824dc8672
795a4fd0cafe2a3aed4abda0ed00b1e58340ef0c
3405 F20101119_AAAFLD tilghman_m_Page_063.txt
41155c0088eea59fc3e27e66834003c3
60fe77feb520ba918033f71b4108db7b1af032eb
112074 F20101119_AAAFYP tilghman_m_Page_049.jp2
d2c889db55211f086f23fa375f0ee116
375cba94bd3bd1031cee79dd981e6011b44097a3
5340 F20101119_AAAEOL tilghman_m_Page_005thm.jpg
ce6b83b2cab062dc82352c21d84097a2
200adcae1e0bcbb5712e5ef851ea20c77346929c
9220 F20101119_AAAFLE tilghman_m_Page_063thm.jpg
b2a35bd34cc6f5d3e908d10647e1077d
3267a60c7b18b9dcf5ee216a7f01bb98f0c200ce
111357 F20101119_AAAFYQ tilghman_m_Page_050.jp2
3b29cb74107a00f6b087f9a506d87b99
85f2d6a77443f4955d64bfad9c56cd9a2fa23948
72328 F20101119_AAAEOM tilghman_m_Page_008.pro
8f187f56b41f717fa2d6105817e4186a
0dfc48b6ef30acc8200d941e4320d7fdd4f10333
703767 F20101119_AAAFLF tilghman_m_Page_117.jp2
4bdd529ef58148ed86006da0065692f0
31df2ff260fc46a2a4b59c414b86fc0d04299927
110565 F20101119_AAAFYR tilghman_m_Page_051.jp2
a803efa9b4c85858342ddcbd06528149
f722d476c3262300ef2d9ea7623c8825612e5a9f
61162 F20101119_AAAEON tilghman_m_Page_106.pro
fe2ba15b8cd627380bfc950df2089b9a
3167e27732afa181f90250abd42768406c2f56b8
111296 F20101119_AAAFLG tilghman_m_Page_129.jpg
4aaa27c9874a2869ff47dc5e9e3fdfb0
d6d80e123356f2e4ddce85e39f00cddf8adb3ddd
64752 F20101119_AAAGIA tilghman_m_Page_228.pro
553adb786abbb274d15c26c7c592ed8e
58c47d55f7b1945aa476c6176a9d5e4d1f3bc0d8
105804 F20101119_AAAFYS tilghman_m_Page_052.jp2
46485435c5a8ed049bbc27032bcb9e59
b48dbe7db729fa5b7d3b8873c13e91ace921c11b
51821 F20101119_AAAEOO tilghman_m_Page_159.pro
f31ed227732414baa21f890e356dd8d5
52ff1b9288e2f33fdd21e1dc759d754bff30ced1
7352 F20101119_AAAFLH tilghman_m_Page_219thm.jpg
291fc6569531e3feb8754c1ae5c84c78
cb4a5dd2227c3085d748b2d5ae92ba5fa375221f
429 F20101119_AAAGIB tilghman_m_Page_001.txt
eefe2b5a2d34936b5e98b9f913cbccb5
9b8e3c0ae79130b89462557f806975f47f0cba9e
110211 F20101119_AAAFYT tilghman_m_Page_055.jp2
ca1ce1c6d64be449680089fe2a595118
f038393f6837594aedb1be6f47f1a672e60a04ad
F20101119_AAAEOP tilghman_m_Page_223.QC.jpg
62d7bb9b03fbd7a5dbf4222ef1dc88fb
e4980d6323dc45d51e5f3de076a32a9a0e5f5f41
592322 F20101119_AAAFLI tilghman_m_Page_035.jp2
3eab81fda32ecb12a28ee00906741ce4
0378b381f5f4fe5c170b2be9e69c5abcbc21ab16
107 F20101119_AAAGIC tilghman_m_Page_002.txt
bfbae1e020b6f8752f350fd6a8a452d6
913dc71cb88ccc96c5a066f5ad125aa4213760af
18512 F20101119_AAAFYU tilghman_m_Page_061.jp2
dc3e5a07c7a5dd5ac612a8b119a6565b
30cb2bf0882a0b35b0dcbc3cfd71c295155adc94
60817 F20101119_AAAEOQ tilghman_m_Page_230.pro
e7440cc0bfbbfb719fdac12f9cb19d67
f8884d0f0773371267f86cdac74f3c39e322f3c7
F20101119_AAAFLJ tilghman_m_Page_176.tif
66e610e4f00476a76aaf7a1886075a2e
45f332c89f813f1477a6b3ba1b7eed67dcdabb31
2900 F20101119_AAAGID tilghman_m_Page_008.txt
516fcb40fdbeef320221e76fc2aa8c51
afe4a271f4499d31bb12323613a72825b9d551d5
130090 F20101119_AAAFYV tilghman_m_Page_063.jp2
de2608f8b4930c8416258b42e7e097fa
c3413eb97a52c41b01bdcef981b174c25b69402b
F20101119_AAAEOR tilghman_m_Page_179.tif
1a32f5966b4f9f0247b1ec8791db440e
0f7eac80b6f6d9d7d9c7c11418f43a979d58aa02
112164 F20101119_AAAFLK tilghman_m_Page_102.jp2
15085d6fae7a2059058855b1ac902083
71272d9721fea307a46fbe4fce5bb73700cb494a
3146 F20101119_AAAGIE tilghman_m_Page_012.txt
fd720a9ad0a5de016649aeef6241ec1b
653d6071bc6a783c056d112ae19fbd91c611062d
109623 F20101119_AAAFYW tilghman_m_Page_064.jp2
de32b9778a379025e6d95a6029509062
07e64f59a95b4d5c52afe9765c12d38f2958d5f7
1632 F20101119_AAAEOS tilghman_m_Page_034.txt
94d391e9b8673623fab3c69bb2cc31e4
3d6d1f34e0750b55ddba9481d69f956ba5fd656f
54221 F20101119_AAAFLL tilghman_m_Page_144.pro
5f50d234fba2c79ffd0e77af83fdf47b
033803c7633c270fcb787186f7125b67230124fd
1541 F20101119_AAAGIF tilghman_m_Page_016.txt
130095c5dc94d22b936e4346a2d0d644
04fd072ab9b17abc55d1ca43af81105810d9dbfa
98931 F20101119_AAAFYX tilghman_m_Page_067.jp2
321664a98dda109b9e72d145a5aa379b
b44388fe6c180a3e3592b6f59fe9ea43a380a881
51783 F20101119_AAAEOT tilghman_m_Page_042.pro
9cd8527e2be1c9d6a50729614f34cef8
3280c212c836892c2292db69f46215a5d53e049d
78270 F20101119_AAAFLM tilghman_m_Page_167.pro
e12dbf26a6429a1e173d21ed0298f4b3
40987e630ac18ef172790a4dc879b76fcc6cc546
1996 F20101119_AAAGIG tilghman_m_Page_019.txt
d8c04f41eed65ba23f3f24ae4d6e1ee3
e8feaf02e595fd403cbc1fee07e9bd0d975c0664
119119 F20101119_AAAFYY tilghman_m_Page_068.jp2
a74eeca9fb52b2beebdd432e91367953
06342750e7f4d2348353ea9bfb7d24d51a272e98
8234 F20101119_AAAEOU tilghman_m_Page_208thm.jpg
44b72fc1ba8159446588c23b605d4abe
e4bf2b54f708a2b7199ad2ea4b664425e8e03074
2660 F20101119_AAAFLN tilghman_m_Page_228.txt
7cf872eab3be13a6772dec0816a9f3fe
159f331302e628f4d9cda735eacbc1880f963d10
1927 F20101119_AAAGIH tilghman_m_Page_029.txt
e41b6271f5dcfe492151a68ac312b51c
e074bc793b078afd3d56f1920b74111a6eb26718
99069 F20101119_AAAFYZ tilghman_m_Page_070.jp2
bb43f1c29de8bfd5b4876a714a0ab94c
b1ab94eec93b29feb534ee7e853038e8c1403486
35749 F20101119_AAAEOV tilghman_m_Page_192.pro
ce00c025c45fa748ee944638e27e3232
ac181055c8433a63271b3240ee3be5739adfbde5
60041 F20101119_AAAFLO tilghman_m_Page_197.jpg
84ceb889a54a9f81cf9356fa9de3cc40
4faab92ee4dd4e31ddfed5ee42d257b176b11ab9
1880 F20101119_AAAGII tilghman_m_Page_031.txt
60fe147f4e45e1e88d4d4a0df9f5062b
f208ef0e4784bddbfe84d603bf4896f4ad1b9023
15087 F20101119_AAAFLP tilghman_m_Page_180.QC.jpg
25f2943ff570990cff46a6899c5ed047
f84440050a9f888eaf415a96bc491eedf1edecb1
2037 F20101119_AAAGIJ tilghman_m_Page_033.txt
c7b72cef6dfa640951b256ac414b724d
c14c83f959f793faa9dc09b55488399597345fd7
F20101119_AAAEOW tilghman_m_Page_159.txt
b5aa0c8aa5df3f9540c983218feffc11
35a333c5143e521b2b1121148265adec36cbacb7
28855 F20101119_AAAFLQ tilghman_m_Page_163.pro
411cedc2182de2063a87d36d8ee4411c
6567993ef06bdc2e3fd20ca1141a19e5b86d5a03
1964 F20101119_AAAGIK tilghman_m_Page_037.txt
23a5e84469137214db1e892ce092b1cd
f2f3d6acae4640267281805c0e067fac817e187f
48710 F20101119_AAAEOX tilghman_m_Page_081.pro
46030ac57f8154ef496a2ba4a01a51cb
ec9c9861fc8d17a1da80023737786e1ccd18a127
41968 F20101119_AAAFLR tilghman_m_Page_076.pro
df74e0f2536e60870c2099365a8b1b00
1a00d756b3932c5ffa9456070e23db1a59ea9f72
1934 F20101119_AAAGIL tilghman_m_Page_045.txt
35b9d7a5ed2f00b9eb31c3d7c6468359
8a22fc379993e9a4263dcfb887cd0d04fcf152a7
F20101119_AAAEOY tilghman_m_Page_041.tif
4f2ab85b199e4d525ae5e374126e96dc
bc3421a40fecb653e54f8f64f245372ca943bf24
2121 F20101119_AAAGIM tilghman_m_Page_046.txt
6d6debf397ee90d00c3eaa1876c9f920
6d76661eabf72421d08562a17de2a7e4e8d60de7
F20101119_AAAEOZ tilghman_m_Page_151.tif
76731deec7959f63e93ecc31fb6e514d
43bac96a5329a481db2dfee499f7ed965cf666bd
108009 F20101119_AAAFLS tilghman_m_Page_204.jpg
4fff6e7255c3fc3bc97077127955514e
fed9ba4b24032a1862c960b7a58015f4cc9310dc
2038 F20101119_AAAGIN tilghman_m_Page_047.txt
df05a2ae57452369fe2af3cd66b65895
ef6cb26441ce2c7d44ff5da5ecfae9118aac1553
41487 F20101119_AAAFLT tilghman_m_Page_179.QC.jpg
7aae0ec493bee72cf736dfd7c19ef3a9
2dd8e0282d3bb9bbbd6c854c903e28acddbd7fc3
F20101119_AAAFLU tilghman_m_Page_197.tif
ac8722e6cab24a236daea2687951fc1c
4efcc0e3366a0807a4396d47c25bbb73728a3b10
1984 F20101119_AAAGIO tilghman_m_Page_048.txt
b789ded124c0a36ad8cfbb6373ff139f
e0fc2bf909861b271704602d074c9380ddc126b0
1003251 F20101119_AAAFLV tilghman_m_Page_104.jp2
08d3d5ea2177d4a8d5631fc0202aa15e
11a7a0adc38b74cb591ccdb4e8a8e8150eba5b42
2068 F20101119_AAAGIP tilghman_m_Page_049.txt
36c5898fd903795b38571ce2f39214d1
6c7916bd5d3aea37e46fbc38621b35147b4345c6
F20101119_AAAFLW tilghman_m_Page_181.tif
0be2f30434704c623cbb0b2bb2142e91
3ef7f810ea173b2482038c2f633f2b1134e2c76d
F20101119_AAAGIQ tilghman_m_Page_052.txt
75bd0e0ca2dd007a3e96a09932951e67
18537bceb19a1c79b2d7224e3c34a65061965538
113541 F20101119_AAAFLX tilghman_m_Page_183.jp2
4f27bc5a46dbaac161c7d5071e0ab759
716edcb44fbc020c75d9731739f6f8e59103ed1b
F20101119_AAAGIR tilghman_m_Page_054.txt
f2fba207c4c8d3c1ab35a8c7a1d84fff
73e249caf605520a48c5632777d3f6d3ab15d61d
F20101119_AAAFLY tilghman_m_Page_125.tif
894f30e2cd81266909349d3b112c9555
f6c76155ba00ed413bda0c4a72e656a518fc50fd
2020 F20101119_AAAGIS tilghman_m_Page_056.txt
6fe9d8c0a44371ab8f58e3a170b449a1
66e978e63f435bbbdefdaf61719cc608a43d413a
138866 F20101119_AAAFLZ tilghman_m_Page_206.jpg
50ae6dbb278c72039e0a800357faba55
228006a1301d7729b22acfeff25a83b2e505eae6
2695 F20101119_AAAGIT tilghman_m_Page_058.txt
1751993f070fbbb0673e112421117e4b
6768d5c045733c88fe5bd0587ae949c31e179c4b
2198 F20101119_AAAGIU tilghman_m_Page_059.txt
d7c7c8e34c45cf2846dd3a0087e74cc1
9c6b9ad112d1667670a17c4e04e5450beed40f67
74034 F20101119_AAAEUA tilghman_m_Page_193.pro
62dc26fb4e549f739da52c6139682ad1
2eca2dee7164ab7e1ba406d2eae611e20b83b9a4
1751 F20101119_AAAGIV tilghman_m_Page_062.txt
4ab37a75950428521d864837d6a26591
ce4fe4f166695584d1be43113000660d5d225fe7
90274 F20101119_AAAEUB tilghman_m_Page_200.pro
9d1fc8aee7a6ba47ea4dbf0bcd31c560
f3b3ddeb7b187312d7e37ca2e74d024d56b3ea79
2036 F20101119_AAAGIW tilghman_m_Page_064.txt
daffd30bfd5b0870ff604cbd758a1576
0dbd7108db4bdd12810eab736bf63692858fbc57
102780 F20101119_AAAEUC tilghman_m_Page_025.jpg
6afde0d94db26e691c7c07bdc276a75b
562002c1bb0b5cabe00c410af1b7929b89c6f239
3300 F20101119_AAAGIX tilghman_m_Page_065.txt
2d920a48376ad7e4ff86f86a6fa2e5b4
b7d7e1911359786c785d7d881708891a651961e7
41327 F20101119_AAAEUD tilghman_m_Page_062.pro
3ccd1d709497791fe202579d91b78582
2d1bf2bf1082185a3a899cb067c73f3667fa2014
2380 F20101119_AAAGIY tilghman_m_Page_070.txt
122fa7a937c9c871c8028ebc82b02dbe
117890ecb19ceaee89a224c2a20db699ed582693
F20101119_AAAEUE tilghman_m_Page_014.tif
50e22ce780a1cabdb17aa5ade95da095
9d87799b30c42284bbaa8fe84f975354dc7eaf97
2297 F20101119_AAAGIZ tilghman_m_Page_071.txt
018cfd85364ee92dd3812d4168f05bb3
d1f9dc13ac9b239e405768117a640e5439c7f70d
F20101119_AAAEUF tilghman_m_Page_102.txt
7029fc21f73cf4651af83511143c1b4c
676f1fcce4018ce6a94f2c1e0a8b09276f843065
51755 F20101119_AAAEUG tilghman_m_Page_047.pro
bb6bc7b7b60c9c4556e4796bae135e90
f2189f4f2c288a4761a708336a6f4e3372708dd1
55606 F20101119_AAAEUH tilghman_m_Page_195.pro
216283375ee03517eaa8c5e42a5b9a01
3efd572e91404ca6394f425d0a16180cfad0a0c7
F20101119_AAAFRA tilghman_m_Page_093.tif
639539f51be1ae6664159acde2f99a0b
24f56df4cd9b597473c37db546358e7876131685
43786 F20101119_AAAEUI tilghman_m_Page_180.jp2
f8550487155dc0c0b996a7759381a537
709737c0ede01abd39620ab76293fd22e40ec85f
2658 F20101119_AAAFRB tilghman_m_Page_113.txt
10aec82c3cfac54535349b508449a0b0
024782dbe640d63614b764bb44c681944c30978f
37116 F20101119_AAAEUJ tilghman_m_Page_170.QC.jpg
62b3eb6a9a2f538f6166909edee09ff2
91094be0fcff0f65cb73ea2fb953fa539ecfc6f8
105991 F20101119_AAAFRC tilghman_m_Page_128.jp2
ca97705e89bf1aeb3b18880e82dcffb6
9a51313ddfe51439dd15eb50ea7fe5a36a3c3c6e
F20101119_AAAEUK tilghman_m_Page_172.tif
8c55b2fb18ba5dad5ede78224e98e42c
1402cd86d6690968bc167c99be8aa5e9c730262e
56253 F20101119_AAAFRD tilghman_m_Page_173.jpg
b71afc9e64833a4c75620dea564858aa
0a3ba509bc9b8c5fd540ec1463296b004180faa4
715348 F20101119_AAAEUL tilghman_m_Page_124.jp2
3b9f7086ba0866f119dad1436376363d
104d5bc10b0bec5451d7840b610753b8ad844bec
F20101119_AAAFRE tilghman_m_Page_078.tif
839e8354543a51b48496d899f1ee296b
8e7c157883a10b55465354b2043ef1b30b64cf9f
103808 F20101119_AAAEUM tilghman_m_Page_064.jpg
f37c72091588fadf9bfc9fad0fe7833b
46c002d76e834f7b4a0e640096c346ef687985b3
33091 F20101119_AAAFRF tilghman_m_Page_055.QC.jpg
40163d5c9b06f0c62acf2f66ac188ff2
4be8599810822045e0a88fc63885ee623a67a077
99488 F20101119_AAAEUN tilghman_m_Page_096.jpg
40c44b0527b0f31ac466b18d82681ca3
d2e0f4f8ec1586f467b2cb56cd39228989721d4a
F20101119_AAAFRG tilghman_m_Page_108thm.jpg
28556d4e145bcafc6d77b002ee01eab5
44d97892ca1f8e399cc3483bc8cdedeae3d6714b
1735 F20101119_AAAEUO tilghman_m_Page_018.txt
ed932aac0306c35bc78e75d28089b3be
430b5404ab8297c9df673a584e6752957e6b0614
63776 F20101119_AAAFRH tilghman_m_Page_163.jpg
13640052c4961d92c932947537e57143
da3669374bb9a277f2c676ec375dd3f999576f9f
7617 F20101119_AAAGOA tilghman_m_Page_078thm.jpg
fcfeccd9b6053b9ab99a218a48aad526
c86abd7f800d2689aa7a58f7ebda8e6d74eb0294
35369 F20101119_AAAEUP tilghman_m_Page_049.QC.jpg
ce4f73dda78080723eec504a3e41539c
d437629b91fda480b0058574382db9b89ad8f055
F20101119_AAAFRI tilghman_m_Page_039.tif
2bdbe019958dda55a8ef467c4deb2fd0
0c623261453bfecb112805fa2e1c0f552173bded
7312 F20101119_AAAGOB tilghman_m_Page_079thm.jpg
2f2d09b37bedeb9d66989bda63e81f94
c608da03b8bc54518a894bd3935b34d8484dcb8d
F20101119_AAAEUQ tilghman_m_Page_068.tif
a4404a7672914d772165add3e6cc4137
f5c7f19cc21e81b20e46a22f7564832a002e0ae3
9109 F20101119_AAAFRJ tilghman_m_Page_176thm.jpg
19e0dec66864c1a46d665cb433e3ffd5
c4d9e9a4f8d52e8b0aa555645d7a7389e8786d4d
7927 F20101119_AAAGOC tilghman_m_Page_081thm.jpg
c94052baf6d6ff00c87f41401e066f46
d85ab9b6b0db72b47fe232b6890d895039177d0f
99617 F20101119_AAAEUR tilghman_m_Page_128.jpg
f20de3967fc537bd0498322a3debfb2e
0a23b3de4d5e4a5bee544d231b3eced6051da730
48017 F20101119_AAAFRK tilghman_m_Page_211.pro
b4a72b1e0b275d3c935f60b16cc166c9
e66e44b32d0b83e6a7f7c7e885eea5c655c91e58
7236 F20101119_AAAGOD tilghman_m_Page_082thm.jpg
84ea55744f1bfae9b1fa908d8609335c
213c7dc9f5930428016090cbe95316e4c1c9a684
1424 F20101119_AAAFEA tilghman_m_Page_137.txt
954c0d84dd52a136937e87f11b56a9d3
123079d57edb6e01dcb61ef8c1ec18a2ffc097fe
8202 F20101119_AAAEUS tilghman_m_Page_146thm.jpg
d0cb2e30698c956e7a620aed81869e22
f33a9981c73dcdb47674663bcb73d89c3e624d10
50066 F20101119_AAAFRL tilghman_m_Page_160.pro
3106c98cdfb66f8e3fbf9a1f0ad26726
649b43773704d35c2cf91bcd7d422067d2a67808
24072 F20101119_AAAGOE tilghman_m_Page_083.QC.jpg
de79b53d7c5711cd9654cf047a54c5cf
796179614b6b0e5c384d1b845a7e8262d0d6b374
94251 F20101119_AAAFEB tilghman_m_Page_199.jpg
606ba33d6a6b8e6d08080fc4cada5e71
1eca706fbe54a95b97883e2738ab4e6309fe889c
51999 F20101119_AAAEUT tilghman_m_Page_148.pro
27bc61b33124dcaedfa15c4836445231
f3452020fe3192898ba54108d0828a303326c0c6
23488 F20101119_AAAFRM tilghman_m_Page_182.jpg
e5543b40708af8fbaca56f25f89e3f2e
486ea75da38dd7ea77d8a33fc0e99d9302d952c4
24263 F20101119_AAAGOF tilghman_m_Page_084.QC.jpg
8786a19edbd1e64cea71b49814949416
b302e4a0ebe98c514a0655f5ef7509b9c6cb8a28
118492 F20101119_AAAFEC tilghman_m_Page_164.jp2
66bbc8df4be877ac216023c12d018abb
3f2c3e6e74ab44646ea8a5d4315afbcb7693c215
28063 F20101119_AAAEUU tilghman_m_Page_123.QC.jpg
84d2f2f9d2cde4d973277bd456b8d37c
e9ded7552ef16fdd6dd864618ec6f9848764bc9e
31718 F20101119_AAAFRN tilghman_m_Page_082.pro
89bffa5602cd7a6733db421247216542
dc412412168f9f213f3ca03c6cd0e5e9555b420d
7233 F20101119_AAAGOG tilghman_m_Page_086thm.jpg
ea4fb232e1b806b5123609cb356f1939
27ed0487995ca897b7045e978ca02a7163d81cab
117990 F20101119_AAAFED tilghman_m_Page_113.jpg
16b7ad36391d053cf73f891e23ed1e27
009672c4916134c2a8d001af9555d2dd8111fccd
723074 F20101119_AAAEUV tilghman_m_Page_087.jp2
e02ccb6b935a4e18ce99f499f70b3396
6329b7aa0eeb65b381155f5e58c7abb35adc72dd
85206 F20101119_AAAFRO tilghman_m_Page_164.pro
cdf3b7a2caecd7c2ff78bfce0744b059
bdf472b1a1066fed4dbcc06292e4d4e3182794a1
25765 F20101119_AAAGOH tilghman_m_Page_087.QC.jpg
50b2c2a013ed0a924e10d7b2a9e88ec9
29219cfb7eebe098a0d23be51f595a05871ae3e1
105665 F20101119_AAAFEE tilghman_m_Page_127.jp2
c57e17eb24a224cfe858164842e68fed
81bf4e88a7c592995d3c6bb30ac81d66d496b340
9326 F20101119_AAAEUW tilghman_m_Page_185thm.jpg
5a16fe81baba3f965125486371c8de98
7a37d73f03294309752d8116fe4b542038b169af
F20101119_AAAFRP tilghman_m_Page_190.tif
087791b2f70b8f69158bf5219406c86a
3be4f1682c9eb253358bef7b11989fa7a2a91a31
33545 F20101119_AAAGOI tilghman_m_Page_090.QC.jpg
c45b83b859b0d584c62987aa896b02aa
d8590b2425ef1ff0c425dfd715341463bd71ab2e
8984 F20101119_AAAFEF tilghman_m_Page_196thm.jpg
7f43ee73d57c724b28e5dcb29d6c1a5a
59bfeb72cf2b60ef865d994cc0bc842fe05e99ae
29377 F20101119_AAAEUX tilghman_m_Page_213.QC.jpg
47b987d589dd1c80fd70414192d66efa
f7f4d045e79689e2e69dbf4ed1a18105dc786678
13353 F20101119_AAAFRQ tilghman_m_Page_232.QC.jpg
5a7e127f4730b6a7f447c8a1b98fe597
1626f78ed1e7cfff31c42a8c7ddbcd6c2e1d9e15
8110 F20101119_AAAGOJ tilghman_m_Page_091thm.jpg
b5052c5dc4dd6ed00f085be06e2e16cd
47d0266fb5e68d2df9154f5980e939b4574f5fd6
52509 F20101119_AAAFEG tilghman_m_Page_171.pro
73263e1bde4e7a676e17d3b55c050e91
991258a695f0b831b81751a3c9626f50cc1b1401
F20101119_AAAEUY tilghman_m_Page_053.tif
58a031cd74082f9df41ddd18b4b93638
ca8f88b4e84266960c7e1ad26b0d44ed9f25ed62
7641 F20101119_AAAFRR tilghman_m_Page_134thm.jpg
5c2d35ad8635e405e7aa9d3b063a3a86
912ebd0c6d04ecd88217bba409561fb41d304496
8105 F20101119_AAAGOK tilghman_m_Page_092thm.jpg
36fc3a3ada43aa63229445b3a0c6840c
b417eadd53ca28c7b617131318c621c34e166196
784802 F20101119_AAAFEH tilghman_m_Page_013.jp2
d0792a29a18aedb067e9ea78b929c785
9d69543d4708aee4bd4b1027901a7ca82356e8e2
52535 F20101119_AAAEUZ tilghman_m_Page_030.pro
80a09eb5759963f4366ae0a8eaabb661
234d2c55ce984f3598403f30baf27bbe225cbfad
53226 F20101119_AAAGBA tilghman_m_Page_201.jp2
65ef807e05a9bbb75dae1d34f3e84555
d06bdc1f4f9322d27680b3e5a24bd2d73971519d
25936 F20101119_AAAFRS tilghman_m_Page_080.QC.jpg
0bc5ac6b21332a7fc9c7a2e9a6e0fc71
a63fcfa3d09c568fc806723fb9463f8d8a97a242
32965 F20101119_AAAGOL tilghman_m_Page_092.QC.jpg
a4eb3eac27aff05ab1dcdb124a2bafa9
7a0127fbe7c5a798c0bef41e0da71e063d7633c6
955612 F20101119_AAAFEI tilghman_m_Page_034.jp2
dcce94516963d524376aab7b0ae9c5c8
a5e566de52d4b3174927dc253adbcd16328a5021
67283 F20101119_AAAGBB tilghman_m_Page_210.jp2
809f0b491d502ad9ef91d4849207150e
1e96868d93f7c11b1e4ab49ba5cfaff44145e40d
104420 F20101119_AAAFRT tilghman_m_Page_138.jpg
bb6ba91c2f4164ece2adc837ae5c6e4c
98912332b716379f22a009d8d9dffa055fa2d673
32809 F20101119_AAAGOM tilghman_m_Page_093.QC.jpg
6e704edb89b18a961beedc1d48e36661
003eb8fd2ebca94d3831222fbf21dfc6c33aeb27
117446 F20101119_AAAFEJ tilghman_m_Page_224.jp2
0ff21518b66b54b1ca2bdcfecf1a8ef1
178996ee588b07eb4b69172b7415bd7421bcf8d9
67726 F20101119_AAAGBC tilghman_m_Page_212.jp2
5a13325a7e4f01ba7dfd7de0bb886ae7
b37795acb41e62113b69bbe5b6aabe11ba3ccf35
F20101119_AAAFRU tilghman_m_Page_127.tif
fa066dd08337d49ffc53d464f0c2ce3a
82aca979e19428cb25f0ce0e7276219dfd4c6505
8275 F20101119_AAAGON tilghman_m_Page_094thm.jpg
971a8223945e8de9e85208ca6a0ded3c
051fe5476cdcae7ab76e9d619fe34e70717d00a0
50715 F20101119_AAAFEK tilghman_m_Page_089.pro
9a82cd110b3942fb528a88e682adf452
98a6eb80bc6dad159b0be9b22b2371298fcaffff
68158 F20101119_AAAGBD tilghman_m_Page_216.jp2
2b4b8dac2c3123c7ff6aa0da685922e6
3802d1eed7877ac7b762ac48de7089f0548d1e91
116087 F20101119_AAAFRV tilghman_m_Page_058.jp2
8516a8d425d33423516bc305d95252bb
cc831a3e9a09739db942f147b164f422363d5018
7814 F20101119_AAAGOO tilghman_m_Page_095thm.jpg
70805935acc511342eddd6ca6cace77e
1c4b2ab6c8562c6684291c33d42660e5267c46f6
99215 F20101119_AAAGBE tilghman_m_Page_218.jp2
2a8baa89c570ec38d62d0a09a5186534
46a237905977fc7e99d81ef8c17bc820fe14c48e
F20101119_AAAFRW tilghman_m_Page_130.tif
b7b044b16f40d2b4c15eadb83d42af02
0767e64de5028d7272c23d640acb0b48f2dc6904
28194 F20101119_AAAGOP tilghman_m_Page_095.QC.jpg
e28766f7ade9d276c69c9a26a961795f
a6dc48ce4afd88500414c5b7b6398e3a38e5d2d6
F20101119_AAAFEL tilghman_m_Page_114.tif
04e88f83c4ff949f2c8a3753404f64ee
1293b89313514796fe2e842b7f9cd61555a68c97
102952 F20101119_AAAGBF tilghman_m_Page_219.jp2
91c86dfa876fa49bc987e5ef9b2f9407
d97a75afa59ca8b747172871db0f2a23ebc156a7
69758 F20101119_AAAFRX tilghman_m_Page_139.jpg
7756b08594602368c580e6db156b3a94
8c686c1ab8226a6b37332f196b51b6e95d92c38f
F20101119_AAAGOQ tilghman_m_Page_096thm.jpg
30fd704e3b6fbdf468cc6d3f6262cbee
1a2826d15683f38395c36f140488f42be447f504
31416 F20101119_AAAFEM tilghman_m_Page_175.jp2
328be3c946bd8fa9ff7954ae34d28357
7bd5dc310470102eab2e5cd321c93f08efa5459c
39615 F20101119_AAAGBG tilghman_m_Page_221.jp2
dc0d23fdd7353b9bbce6131c999dd1d1
320efb8bf6e62cac3b59659678d3ee986eb3a96e
32682 F20101119_AAAGOR tilghman_m_Page_096.QC.jpg
a95d98ce27fa35411068f68806a80b75
974666ecdcba30b524fed277f1f40f47f40c1003
22403 F20101119_AAAFEN tilghman_m_Page_212.QC.jpg
0c1976a808c9355ddbf27338abfae578
cb0bc778d1b34beab191b2ea9ec2807c11326cce
F20101119_AAAFRY tilghman_m_Page_158.tif
f44df4afd7503a2d26d06f5a92ccfaba
6aa62a99a04f5eaeb1d1d97b968b4786ccc9653e
35106 F20101119_AAAGOS tilghman_m_Page_098.QC.jpg
a2e10bc5b06609b119513dc002f40a9f
3e8acc03acb9ee072e3f54dd3a552cf269235fa6
F20101119_AAAFEO tilghman_m_Page_209.tif
721dd8166a47cd775968f6f3f8c80dc4
441b9d7ab1d65635f6ecd0fc9a6e3b0f94aba9d7
213028 F20101119_AAAGBH tilghman_m_Page_231.jp2
4f041ca56ff36f744e46675054e2ad84
80abbfbc1df7cb5350643b3af076546c7fa0d317
1908 F20101119_AAAFRZ tilghman_m_Page_132.txt
c9c106e6ea5861cb5c171c9dc28fbfb6
e82a52887caf0bba47f6a1c37d387353432ce7ab
36837 F20101119_AAAGOT tilghman_m_Page_099.QC.jpg
0a3d250fa15943208b7b4eab844f7af6
383be6b18ac9c904becbf305d90d07ed20646293
115577 F20101119_AAAFEP tilghman_m_Page_068.jpg
af32ef27a28b44866f9c400bb9ba6d7c
4f1a9a5d466561d6482de6f4e174d61179658a11
F20101119_AAAGBI tilghman_m_Page_001.tif
54d4ccbab055ab75145d1ae08c4b642f
2922966a493d4766c90e662242c367c4d2664188
31319 F20101119_AAAFEQ tilghman_m_Page_070.QC.jpg
bf5d356c43538da5a8b90fd9ad2d4adb
cd8d25396f82785517356045032811e9d7604c2d
F20101119_AAAGBJ tilghman_m_Page_002.tif
fbe0a363bf7760ad33ae343369fbbf6c
51bab44458c1e316a559652114c97316b56c0c16
35788 F20101119_AAAGOU tilghman_m_Page_100.QC.jpg
29dcaae20bb9130ab7c336beceb85a49
87181ce6cdb6c4a63a61e31932fd4370ee823286
F20101119_AAAFER tilghman_m_Page_079.tif
037a4fcaa377242a527c4bf473dad429
00870e654228ffee0981ad9cda99c6863c7cb527
F20101119_AAAGBK tilghman_m_Page_004.tif
e7ec8d98e15143d949953d259fcf8198
cfa4da23eeb225751ebd3b42785955da9357ae05
F20101119_AAAGOV tilghman_m_Page_101thm.jpg
576993ed6ec99fcb03b8ea4df30a9320
4982ff69fa8561d7a2e942af50e0c72a177fa93b
110359 F20101119_AAAFES tilghman_m_Page_072.jp2
8a6338fa05421b7dc9c97877e5402b08
91d1c3dcf1730489e3debac6deabb6dbf59c44cc
F20101119_AAAGBL tilghman_m_Page_006.tif
4037e5ad8fd5c59f61d15e6539d5e074
8d240ff24833dccd479bab5535fb1f9ea961d286
8676 F20101119_AAAGOW tilghman_m_Page_103thm.jpg
c7dc73443182cbe08578eef12aeca574
06a320dd59de0337495a8c13800b817f5a80f57c
4049 F20101119_AAAFET tilghman_m_Page_174.txt
507ee844daa6fa4d6149368bbbf13a4a
a2d5e0a0e83ee1c70c167dfc7bc1224d7c0ea25f
F20101119_AAAGBM tilghman_m_Page_007.tif
8181b5632cebc61970a94e5290d4d11f
91a8e0d3ac9a9fda0a0295ba7298fd960a24bcc4
9252 F20101119_AAAGOX tilghman_m_Page_106thm.jpg
0f40afc8db0f21a5761ab59302870e94
e07372d366fc0d3ab89c3172bca2fe52443ef541
8923 F20101119_AAAFEU tilghman_m_Page_115thm.jpg
ded46481a5fc275f7b3b57e9148bcd0d
defb5c3fec91c6df79d821c11e732b9093ba7195
F20101119_AAAGBN tilghman_m_Page_008.tif
bbac303d757cd740189200c732abfa6b
bb34404d3da3bdf2b236270e6c3ef2b8c47ebce2
38035 F20101119_AAAGOY tilghman_m_Page_106.QC.jpg
d5c166b13d957e6ffe20b3d66e0d169f
0de86dbc534423c978d94ec97a62d3670f41266e
34474 F20101119_AAAFEV tilghman_m_Page_113.QC.jpg
78442214f002f4c17440e9d62672f5b5
3adac227421a2fa4f733fc8544b3c2ccd5966004
F20101119_AAAGBO tilghman_m_Page_009.tif
45542fee32989e908620a62b684fcd04
2784199e6e0a5c4d495b274672dfb242b01d575b
6917 F20101119_AAAGOZ tilghman_m_Page_107thm.jpg
0a874f2b265f41409fc2d0f6dd197096
f1bcca13ca72b3fb64d85fabc7baea181b8af914
7119 F20101119_AAAFEW tilghman_m_Page_083thm.jpg
a95a97e7c0580fd809bc19f7e86443cf
290a14fd7d1b8f5ad35ae495f80794e7bdcc75a6
F20101119_AAAGBP tilghman_m_Page_010.tif
a01350d67acfd5a4cd22fb0ba5c11852
8fb42a33fe0f8a3d7ce3ceb8a834fb765a8ab56e
F20101119_AAAFEX tilghman_m_Page_090.tif
668d78f5831f4d658eb6f04916270d34
6eff64bb9d2aaaa6c7fa60ab58b52b0475a284a8
94553 F20101119_AAAFXA tilghman_m_Page_154.jpg
b9d5222bf736821e365b3692f81da6ba
559dd79b39052c73d419574732dc445ab6c891c2
F20101119_AAAGBQ tilghman_m_Page_013.tif
104e189090b0b0e04bd6718d8f95d0b3
7126f6a6b4cfb4cfb9a7c586fa93609afd6054b2
8264 F20101119_AAAFEY tilghman_m_Page_051thm.jpg
67bf8f7df069029736956fe2130f1df3
0f581a222143ce7602f3216d622cdd1d41a8cfba
8534 F20101119_AAAFXB tilghman_m_Page_156.jpg
37ddda23f058c9fb57fddd2e70b7d2ae
bf34bfe49945575e8dd03adec9bab05de88d0a41
F20101119_AAAGBR tilghman_m_Page_017.tif
161a56921be6d53763899c80abd4568f
9e150ba9ec0e931016bcbbd9304bb1896295c597
49082 F20101119_AAAFEZ tilghman_m_Page_093.pro
f0ff29de89091857ec48dd7e1b0329eb
e714e03a9e2373211d3e666c3094bad92c0146e1
96573 F20101119_AAAFXC tilghman_m_Page_158.jpg
af16326e08383eabe62f4eaf5cac31d7
dc8abb041f3b717d083ab4292ac0eab79d04fe98
F20101119_AAAGBS tilghman_m_Page_019.tif
2566378edcfecbf50aaa3b614d1c8da5
f1f0150fcb4fb99ffec159fb979ab083e63acf92
82293 F20101119_AAAFXD tilghman_m_Page_162.jpg
4aba39352739008b55efea4dac46ccbc
2458b5d522d08a44dabc721f51dd5818f5a22a16
F20101119_AAAGBT tilghman_m_Page_020.tif
59384f9e2cbe5e8a84873664c84822ad
6f5532e5db039c1d6036969af9f8eb3e13a27265
21647 F20101119_AAAFXE tilghman_m_Page_165.jpg
97d51a63766e4651f844d4948a65aefb
c88a526b0f7b222208f90ba15f888b2887174d69
F20101119_AAAGBU tilghman_m_Page_021.tif
fa6e17a57256e0a7677ec555d2d298ad
8960be5bca58652a11a15d902d6e81849fb0e5ba
25697 F20101119_AAAENA tilghman_m_Page_124.QC.jpg
fd68cca39c4f2333427d5022ec2fcc9d
92b42dd7f67434f140632c6598ed193833a0ddf7
85460 F20101119_AAAFXF tilghman_m_Page_171.jpg
f437827a4ee81da34423a94f36c6d8f4
8e86f4f230ed5bd624285dd1db46cc7db4bedeb0
F20101119_AAAGBV tilghman_m_Page_026.tif
aa96f863c8dada78095eabf5c45710b1
769900e1ec52fd89c01a45cebb71710e93c242fe
F20101119_AAAENB tilghman_m_Page_186.tif
76bca372b0a1dd65d1f717ced0e5f3ae
0c91466e12da0d0c7880e1204199d67491127b56
156514 F20101119_AAAFXG tilghman_m_Page_174.jpg
4b2cafd3163b13bcdbf296cb68b051a6
8d96ddb7b9727b80ebbf7b6fa5ad493b3f485e2d
F20101119_AAAGBW tilghman_m_Page_030.tif
298a0d79668b60856a345b480dc91e0d
f8845868a818ac5218c91d038fa5f2b6c159a2c9
107254 F20101119_AAAENC tilghman_m_Page_140.jpg
5b0d07a5902de4d44a5070933d688c61
dae38f4d176139bd048fb67e9fbcb8455224a411
35284 F20101119_AAAFXH tilghman_m_Page_175.jpg
9488fb160c55da616610957a34692734
e09481862a68bf363d6b19333fd3a73a7f933c83
F20101119_AAAGBX tilghman_m_Page_031.tif
38a2cc8acf4d13ce3b70dc1fa2f91a5e
bb57dbfcb1c31bf0dbb12fe899d670b2a8c9a507
F20101119_AAAEND tilghman_m_Page_037.tif
5485d2375125941120c16804f27b74d0
26dc9d01c7a64f37fd237b222fd8573514e28a81
148664 F20101119_AAAFXI tilghman_m_Page_176.jpg
569dfa7c74fdffac0387d92c8b6ca77b
1523d2c6d27e49a0d014e6d8f339c9f79192af01
F20101119_AAAGBY tilghman_m_Page_032.tif
d2095fc25284b4a58e4003373b5ab31e
f90bb6d93563e203c3f5965834d141b4371ec3bd
F20101119_AAAENE tilghman_m_Page_177.tif
340cd308f2325707b995f604dda19b3c
0b0532e8794da8038acbbc1ece1a1a2f4d1aee73
149672 F20101119_AAAFXJ tilghman_m_Page_179.jpg
762278705de431bae7d211658fdbe21a
92e58a8f3b4b6e1aef08e1af3b8f96492019a87e
F20101119_AAAGBZ tilghman_m_Page_033.tif
a5275cb7fc89782d73e2c17982ef93d5
523b4e7a3f4583e20c5e0d14544b3bcb575f4eb0
1071 F20101119_AAAENF tilghman_m_Page_035.txt
21da69a2407b1dfc7db2e82d76f1e540
e334e0af908a6dac88c50d34f76f4a607f33a78c
50102 F20101119_AAAFXK tilghman_m_Page_180.jpg
66e6cfd0bc0ac896366580b6adc4a867
a69a177f0b69fcdfa58cfe72bda5a0fc0cf111d7
F20101119_AAAENG tilghman_m_Page_009.jp2
500522c5d9fa4935d38b9f983b4597d5
6ee6349bd86093f5d6dcfaa2e6f217ef0639ca88
30780 F20101119_AAAFXL tilghman_m_Page_184.jpg
4aefb147319754b2e83674f95e7dea4f
e8b77c4e8dbd2ff501d60a650375cc09eb1e3c4e
31711 F20101119_AAAENH tilghman_m_Page_223.jpg
cb114580d29f6ec837c44563f6d7c234
2d90569f8221f1258c4c8e417dc25b62db2053ef
2462 F20101119_AAAFKA tilghman_m_Page_230.txt
a489c1317881f34b3cbd9ab83fd176bf
2c30f17a9d995c61efb3c2ce9d6fdfef680689d7
62761 F20101119_AAAFXM tilghman_m_Page_186.jpg
6c99ddc5aa99e0f29443b032339d8235
8863710ffa088b9091ce89d999112b67fec7f88a
106742 F20101119_AAAENI tilghman_m_Page_126.jpg
4b6ebcd9c10589983ab33653141789fa
76153c94f535bfbaf1bc2e441ed971188375a945
42547 F20101119_AAAFKB tilghman_m_Page_121.pro
617bc894949e73da34d1c21ca195ef8f
43749782bd5ad2a0230ea8ea8d3146bf01f49403
128254 F20101119_AAAFXN tilghman_m_Page_187.jpg
a9fe63ba6137f6af797f1e5b30450689
ca94da77f517fd6a8fbaad5c8f849718dab23058
29993 F20101119_AAAENJ tilghman_m_Page_227.QC.jpg
f7756ba13b0b36e5002c4eca43bb9aba
22687e4e5f3dfdbaebeacd5a7827d09e6e32eeee
51174 F20101119_AAAFKC tilghman_m_Page_151.pro
0f44396f85dcc4b0a6d73e24ab6ecba0
d214d724181627ab6f44b95783522be0d4e905d6
29621 F20101119_AAAFXO tilghman_m_Page_188.jpg
49b14a4bd04b2a998b84f0e3866528da
22dc562bbf56500d5f30806c9b421bac4744fcac
33318 F20101119_AAAENK tilghman_m_Page_145.QC.jpg
de4580a851d7c62db6e2560db6f4a57a
b282141184c857a9075b82ece4ebdafcceee7b7d
2031 F20101119_AAAFKD tilghman_m_Page_154.txt
a8dff695f1c7a464c53f3cffca4a927d
a0d3053b8012f41d907c0250e59a9185f1d93555
31622 F20101119_AAAFXP tilghman_m_Page_194.jpg
7b8478e083f9e54ac2ccdf6d385b0b7f
b6c6d96048b454bf1302c9cd80c1261949c3679d
83179 F20101119_AAAENL tilghman_m_Page_022.jpg
d565378f4c109254eaa8637149c14631
628295388716e65b20ac2903967186e59b111b19
2058 F20101119_AAAFKE tilghman_m_Page_146.txt
54ca0056c12358a40e5ff31beeffc643
5f4c9f701ef45243bbf36f77df34c8b340f9ed32
144695 F20101119_AAAFXQ tilghman_m_Page_196.jpg
82b77850a755edc5be9ae3d2f6ea8900
7d619ed1e2095d4aa96eb672a062d6fefbd15932
38496 F20101119_AAAENM tilghman_m_Page_206.QC.jpg
856e0d0354498d9e74fc8e1eb61d675c
66950c90cc5191ba5907c061e50c41efefcba760
F20101119_AAAFKF tilghman_m_Page_024.txt
9192534d8d9ee46c98e5f5b2310362c8
001fbcb133328f20ee5b0a8b64b0f807494fe472
141109 F20101119_AAAFXR tilghman_m_Page_202.jpg
a21dd8d321368b4734dc6f471e7e492e
b29f4b5ad39cefeaa003a322cf95de9e71fa9292
37587 F20101119_AAAENN tilghman_m_Page_012.QC.jpg
9cc42d38c1b04e464b305d969c07c68b
2b810bb429f886afec12f2b629ad7ddefab88138
1989 F20101119_AAAFKG tilghman_m_Page_027.txt
2b13f1f6e06996d4064a63b0cae17e53
d3b5008f08de60131a6eb8f5b141fb25f5e3077f
50852 F20101119_AAAGHA tilghman_m_Page_145.pro
c25fd734762e48c34ae5269ca9db77c3
32d057449499ba79ff00af7725097146863fd6e0
30734 F20101119_AAAFXS tilghman_m_Page_203.jpg
10c0c40766ceda727abbbfb0c97373e3
e36baf66a4c7c4cf6c38c05e6d39a71e4ed35a25
3736 F20101119_AAAENO tilghman_m_Page_196.txt
4e83a37fe4808b3a9764cfee4661a124
b0f0a0fb5d8c1d302d8788dbd6f2acce66a7efc6
822558 F20101119_AAAFKH tilghman_m_Page_131.jp2
d3f862d2d42036ea5cd95f02638af4d9
3c1fe039cd7bbbd895a9c142aa44a0511cddff71
46811 F20101119_AAAGHB tilghman_m_Page_152.pro
142128b4442652bdc933b893536bf67e
f3c1252aa776e4c47863fb22528308a0044c6927
46866 F20101119_AAAFXT tilghman_m_Page_207.jpg
a914ecd19547db0c098f5eb440d4990f
045799aaa33499ad389a8d6ba28a35208a800342
6463 F20101119_AAAENP tilghman_m_Page_199thm.jpg
ad256732becfe43b4473cd41a604566f
012bf079e5f7d84c7137de10c72dd7a04d315e76
8510 F20101119_AAAFKI tilghman_m_Page_129thm.jpg
d1c5de04df21e646b88094964636170b
fb32e840e0cd4e124344b7f35d962f3322b37631



PAGE 1

CONSTRUCTING A SUCCESSFUL RESIDENT IAL GREEN RATING GUIDELINE By M. TENCH TILGHMAN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by M. Tench Tilghman

PAGE 3

This thesis is dedicated to Elizabeth.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I must take the time to thank those in my personal and professional life who have helped in guiding me to this point. Firstl y, I would like to thank my parents for their continual support and words of encouragement. I would not have made it this far without them. Secondly, this thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and advice that I have received from my committee – Dr Charles Kibert, Dr. Paul Oppenheim and Dr. Svetlana Olbina. Finally, a special note of thanks has to be given to Elizabeth. I thank her for being the one that I can count on for anything. I thank her for bein g my better half. The road that lies ahead of us is full of promise, happiness and success.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................xiv ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................xv i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Background...................................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................2 Purpose........................................................................................................................ .3 Scope and Limitations..................................................................................................4 Overview....................................................................................................................... 5 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................6 Sustainability Principles and Its Significance...............................................................6 Other “Green” Options for Sustainable Single-Family Residential Structures............8 General Overview of Residential Green Rating Systems.............................................9 Criteria Selection...................................................................................................9 Assessment of a Structure...................................................................................11 Participation.........................................................................................................12 Incentives.............................................................................................................12 Verification Mechanisms.....................................................................................13 Marketplace Acceptance.............................................................................................15 Cost Increase Sensitivity.....................................................................................16 Consumer Green Upgrade Preferences...............................................................20 The Builders’ Perspective....................................................................................20 Current Trends and Issues..........................................................................................24 Criteria Selection.................................................................................................24 Point Weighting...................................................................................................25 Overall Costs of Building Green.........................................................................27 Life Cycle Assessments.......................................................................................30 Voluntary vs. Mandatory Standards....................................................................32

PAGE 6

vi Code Approval.....................................................................................................34 Local Factors.......................................................................................................35 Previous Studies on Residential Green Rating Systems in the U.S............................37 The Process for Creating a Resi dential Green Rating System...................................40 Conclusion..................................................................................................................43 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................45 Rating Systems...........................................................................................................45 Rating System Analysis..............................................................................................47 Core Characteristics.............................................................................................49 Sustainability Stratification.................................................................................50 Geographic Stratification.....................................................................................52 Five Variable Sets................................................................................................54 Number of Certified Homes................................................................................56 Statistical Analysis Limitation............................................................................56 Rating System Creation Procedure.............................................................................57 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................59 Residential Green Rating System General Analysis..................................................59 Types of Rating Systems Analyzed.....................................................................59 Core Characteristics.............................................................................................62 Date of founding...........................................................................................63 Type of organization....................................................................................63 Verification procedures................................................................................65 Builder incentives.........................................................................................66 Membership type..........................................................................................67 Builder fees..................................................................................................68 Optional and mandatory program elements.................................................69 Sustainability Stratification.................................................................................71 Bonus/innovation.........................................................................................72 Builder operations........................................................................................73 Energy efficiency.........................................................................................73 Homeowner education/operati on and maintenance (o&m).........................74 Indoor environmental quality (IEQ).............................................................74 Preexisting standards/codes..........................................................................75 Resource/material efficiency........................................................................75 Site planning.................................................................................................76 Water efficiency...........................................................................................76 Unique..........................................................................................................77 Geographic Stratification.....................................................................................77 Residential Green Rating System Builder Guideline Analysis..................................78 Number of Points and Line Items........................................................................79 Points-based programs.................................................................................80 Prescriptive programs...................................................................................88 Energy guarantee programs..........................................................................91

PAGE 7

vii Number of Minimum Points Required in Each Section......................................92 Points-based programs.................................................................................93 Number of Mandatory Line Items in Each Section...........................................101 Points-based programs...............................................................................101 Prescriptive programs.................................................................................107 Energy guarantee programs........................................................................110 Green Home Certification.................................................................................111 Points required for certification..................................................................112 Number of certified homes – yearly data...................................................116 Number of certified homes geographic data............................................121 Analysis in Relation to the Issues an d Trends in Residential Green Rating Systems.................................................................................................................123 The Construction of A Successful Residential Green Rating System......................125 The Five Most Successful Rating Systems to Date...........................................125 Primary Considerations for a Newly Formed Rating System...........................129 Adaptation to the State of Florida.....................................................................132 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH.140 Conclusions...............................................................................................................140 Recommendations for Further Research..................................................................141 As-Built Home Environmental Effectiveness Analysis....................................141 Market Rate Effects of Green Rating Systems..................................................142 Perception Survey..............................................................................................143 Recommendation Conclusion...................................................................................144 APPENDIX A POINTS-BASED PROGRAM DATA.....................................................................146 Arlington Green Home Choice.................................................................................147 Aspen Efficient Building Program...........................................................................149 Austin Energy's Green Building Program................................................................150 Boulder Green Points Program.................................................................................152 Build San Antonio Green..........................................................................................153 Built Green Colorado................................................................................................155 Built Green Jefferson County...................................................................................157 Built Green King/Snohomish Counties....................................................................159 Built Green Kitsap County.......................................................................................161 Built Green Olympia.................................................................................................162 Built Green Pierce County........................................................................................164 Built Green Whatcom County..................................................................................166 Earth Advantage.......................................................................................................168 EarthCraft House......................................................................................................170 Florida Green Home Destination..............................................................................172 Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc.................................................................................174 Grand Traverse Green Built Program.......................................................................176

PAGE 8

viii Green Building in Alameda County.........................................................................178 Hawaii BuiltGreen....................................................................................................179 Innovative Building Review Program......................................................................181 LEED for Homes......................................................................................................182 NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines......................................................183 North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program.........................................................185 Scottsdales GREENBUILDING Program...............................................................187 Vermont Builds Greener Program............................................................................188 Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes.........................................................189 Wisconsin Green Built Home...................................................................................191 B PRESCRIPTIVE PROGRAM DATA......................................................................193 ALA Health House...................................................................................................194 California Green Builder Program............................................................................195 CNM Building America Partner...............................................................................196 EcoBuild Program....................................................................................................197 Frisco Green Building Program................................................................................198 C ENERGY GUARANTEE PROGRAM DATA........................................................199 APS Performance Built Homes................................................................................200 Environments for Living...........................................................................................201 TEP Guarantee Home Program................................................................................202 D HISTORICAL AND REGIONAL CERTIFIED HOME DATA.............................204 Certified Home Data: All 35 Programs...................................................................205 Certified Home Data: 27 Points-Based Programs...................................................207 Certified Home Data: Five Prescriptive Programs..................................................208 Certified Home Data: Three Energy Guarantee Programs.......................................209 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................210 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................215

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Influences on Environmental Issu e Organization and Cr iteria Selection................10 2-2 Effects of Rating System Usage...............................................................................16 2-3 Energy Efficient Mortgage Savings.........................................................................29 2-4 Green Building Legislative Issues............................................................................41 2-5 Steps in Developing a Green Builder Program........................................................43 3-1 Rating Systems Analyzed.........................................................................................46 3-2 Rating System Classification Matrix........................................................................48 3-3 Category Normalization...........................................................................................50 3-4 Geographic Regionalization.....................................................................................52 3-5 Rating Systems Within Each Geographic Region....................................................53 4-1 Types of Rating Systems..........................................................................................60 4-2 Twenty Five Points-based Systems That Utilized the Sustainability Categories in Their Guidelines........................................................................................................81 4-3 Percentage of Points and Line Items in Each Category, for the 25 Points-Based Programs...................................................................................................................82 4-4 Four Prescriptive Programs U tilizing Sustainability Categories..............................88 4-5 Percentage of Total Line Items in E ach Category: Four Prescriptive Programs.....89 4-6 Percentage of Line Items in Each Category: Three Energy Guarantee Programs...91 4-7 Sixteen Points-Based Rating Systems Th at Specified Minimum Points in Each Category...................................................................................................................94 4-8 Points-Based Programs Without Minimum Points Required at All.........................96

PAGE 10

x 4-9 Minimum Points Required in Each Category Based on the Category’s Total Point Value, For All 16 Programs Analyzed............................................................96 4-10 Minimum Points Required in Each Ca tegory Based on the Total Points Possible in the Entire Rating System, for All 16 Programs Analyzed...................................98 4-11 Minimum Points Required Based on Tota l Points Possible in the Entire Rating System, for the Five Programs w ith Multiple Certification Levels.........................99 4-12 Twenty-two Points-Based Rating System s That Specified Mandatory Line Items in Each Category....................................................................................................102 4-13 Points-Based Programs Without Mandatory Line Items at All..............................103 4-14 Mandatory Line Items as a Percentage of Line Items in Each Category, for the 22 Points-based Programs......................................................................................104 4-15 Mandatory Line Items as a Percentage of Total Line Items, for the 22 PointsBased Programs......................................................................................................105 4-16 Four Prescriptive Programs that Sp ecified Mandatory Line Items in Each Category.................................................................................................................108 4-17 Mandatory Line Items as a Percentage of Total Line Items, for the Four Prescriptive Programs............................................................................................109 4-18 Certification Levels Offered: Points-Based Systems.............................................112 4-19 Percentage of Total Points Possible Needed for Certification for the 27 PointsBased Programs......................................................................................................113 4-20 Percentage Increase in Points Needed to Gain a Higher Certification Level.........114 4-21 Twenty Three Programs With Annual Certification Data.....................................116 4-22 Programs Without Certification Data.....................................................................120 4-23 Successful Program Ho me Certification Data.......................................................126 4-24 Successful Rating System Flexibility.....................................................................127 4-25 Successful Program Systems Thinking..................................................................128 4-26 Process Guide Summary........................................................................................137 A-1 Arlington Green Home Choice Core Characteristics, Point Structure and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................147

PAGE 11

xi A-2 Aspen Efficient Building Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................149 A-3 Austin Energy’s Green Building Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data........................................................................................150 A-4 Boulder Green Points Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................152 A-5 Build San Antonio Green Core Charact eristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................................153 A-6 Built Green Colorado Core Characteristic s, Points Worksheet Configuration and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................155 A-7 Built Green Jefferson County Core Ch aracteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................157 A-8 Build Green King/Snohomish Counties Co re Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data........................................................................................159 A-9 Built Green Kitsap County Core Charact eristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................................161 A-10 Built Green Olympia Core Characteristic s, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data........................................................................................................................162 A-11 Built Green Pierce County Core Charact eristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................................164 A-12 Built Green Whatcom County Core Ch aracteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................166 A-13 Earth Advantage Core Characteristic s, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data........................................................................................................................168 A-14 EarthCraft House Core Characteristi cs, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data........................................................................................................................170 A-15 Florida Green Home Designation Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................172 A-16 Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................174 A-17 Grand Traverse Green Built Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................176

PAGE 12

xii A-18 Green Building in Alameda County Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................178 A-19 Hawaii BuiltGreen Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data........................................................................................................................179 A-20 Innovative Building Review Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................181 A-21 LEED for Homes Core Characteristics Points Worksheet Configuration and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................182 A-22 NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines Core Characteristics, Points Worksheet Configuration a nd Certified Home Data..............................................183 A-23 North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data.....................................................................185 A-24 Scottsdale’s GREENBUILDING Pr ogram Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data.....................................................................187 A-25 Vermont Builds Greener Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................188 A-26 Western North Carolina Healthy Bui lt Homes Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data.....................................................................189 A-27 Wisconsin Green Built Home Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................191 B-1 ALA Health House Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data........................................................................................................................194 B-2 California Green Builder Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................195 B-3 CNM Building America Partner Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................196 B-4 EcoBuild Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data........................................................................................................................197 B-5 Frisco Green Building Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................198 C-1 APS Performance Built Homes Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................200

PAGE 13

xiii C-2 Environments for Living Core Charac teristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................................202 C-3 TEP Guarantee Home Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data..............................................................................................203 D-1 Certified Home Data – 1991 to February of 2006, All Programs..........................206 D-2 Points-Based Program Certified Home Data – 1991 to February of 2006.............208 D-3 Prescriptive Program Certified Ho me Data – 1991 – February of 2006................209 D-4 Energy Guarantee Program Certified Home Data – 1991 – February of 2006......210

PAGE 14

xiv LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Consumer Willingness-to-Pay Based on Cost and Return: Adapted.......................17 2-2 Consumer Willingness-to-Pay vs. Capital Cost Recovery: Adapted.......................18 2-3 Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for “Soft” Benefits: Adapted...................................18 2-4 How Much Consumers are Willing to Pay for Green Upgrades – Their Perspective vs. a Builders Perspective.....................................................................19 2-5 Consumer Upgrade Preferences: Adapted...............................................................21 2-6 Sustainable Upgrades: Consumer De mand vs. Builder Perception: Adapted.........21 4-1 Rating System Start Up Year...................................................................................63 4-2 Organizational Type.................................................................................................65 4-3 Verification Procedures............................................................................................66 4-4 Incentives to Builders...............................................................................................67 4-5 Membership Type....................................................................................................68 4-6 Fees Charged to Builders.........................................................................................69 4-7 Common Optional Elements....................................................................................70 4-8 Common Required Elements...................................................................................71 4-9 Percentage of Programs in Each Region..................................................................78 4-10 Average Percentage of Total Points and Total Line Items By Category for the 25 Points-Based Programs............................................................................................84 4-11 Average Percentage of Total Points Possible by Category and Region for the 25 Points-Based Programs............................................................................................86 4-12 Average Percentage of Total Line Items by Category and Region for the 25 Points-Based Programs............................................................................................87

PAGE 15

xv 4-13 Average Percentage of Total Line Items by Category: Four Prescriptive Programs...................................................................................................................90 4-14 Average Percentage of Total Line Items by Category – Three Prescriptive Programs (w/o Frisco)..............................................................................................90 4-15 Average Percentage of Total Line Items by Category: Three Energy Guarantee Programs...................................................................................................................92 4-16 Average Minimum Points-based on the Category’s Total Possible Points For All 16 Points-Based Programs.......................................................................................97 4-17 Average Percentage of Minimum Po ints Required Based on Total Points Possible for All 16 Programs Analyzed...................................................................99 4-18 Average Percentage of Minimum Poin ts Required for the Five Programs with Multiple Certification Levels.................................................................................100 4-19 Average Percent of Mandatory Line It ems in Each Category for 22 Points-Based Programs.................................................................................................................104 4-20 Average Percentage of Mandatory Li ne Items Based on the Total Number of Line Items for the 22 Points-Based Programs........................................................106 4-21 Total Percentage of Line Items Th at Are Mandatory for 23 Points-Based Programs (Including Scottsdale)............................................................................107 4-22 Average Percentage of Total Line Items That Are Mandatory, by Category, For the Four Prescriptive Programs..............................................................................109 4-23 Average Percentage of Points Needed for Certification........................................114 4-24 Average Percentage of Points Needed to Gain a Higher Certification Level........116 4-25 Annual Certification Data All 23 Programs...........................................................117 4-26 Annual Certification for Points -Based and Prescriptive Programs........................118 4-27 Number of Certified Homes by the Th ree Types of Programs as of February 2006........................................................................................................................120 4-28 Number of Certified Homes Based on the Geographic Regions...........................122 5-1 Rating System Success Tiers..................................................................................145

PAGE 16

xvi Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Bu ilding Construction CONSTRUCTING A SUCCESSFUL RESIDENT IAL GREEN RATING GUIDELINE By M. Tench Tilghman May 2006 Chair: Charles J. Kibert Cochair: Paul Oppenheim Major Department: Building Construction Environmental issues have been an incr easing concern for the construction industry over the past two decades. Historically, the industry has been marked by generations of static means and methods, which have resu lted in an inordinate amount of negative impacts on the planet’s natural systems. Fortunately, a recent wave of green building rating systems has appeared to combat this problem, especially within the residential sector. Since 1991, there has been approximately 35 different reside ntial green rating systems introduced in the U.S. The program s offer homebuilders cohesive procedural guidelines for constructing an environmen tally friendly home by offering a range of criteria across a few key categories. T ypically, the guidelines address construction practices that are intended to improve a home’s energy efficiency, resource efficiency, water efficiency, indoor environmental qua lity, and site planning impacts. The

PAGE 17

xvii overarching goal of these programs is to facilitate the improvement of the residential built environment. The purpose of this research is to quantita tively examine the various structures that the residential green rating systems have empl oyed in their builder guidelines, in order to determine their similarities or differences. Subsequently, these findings will be utilized to determine success indicators fo r residential green rating system s. Once this analysis is complete, this study will present a model th at outlines the process for creating a new residential green standard in the state of Fl orida. This model will be underpinned by the various issues that currently surround existing rating systems, which will help to ensure long-term success of a newly formed program.

PAGE 18

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background The construction industry in the U.S. curren tly consumes three billion tons of raw materials on an annual basis, which is over 90% of the tota l material resource consumption in this country (Tusa, 2002). A ccording to the United States Department of Energy, the construction of a typical 2,000 s quare foot home will result in 8,000 pounds of construction waste being generated, not to mention the large quantities of raw materials that must be displaced during the extraction and manufacturing processes of the materials (United States Department of Energy, 2005B). Furthermore, America’s housing sector represents 36% of the nation’ s electricity demand, which is expected to increase by 39% during the first decade of th is century (Swanson et al., 2005). Finally, modern building practices, coupled with synthe tic material advances, have also resulted in diminished indoor environmental quality in newly constructed homes, which has the potential to contribute to h ealth issues such as allerg ies or asthma (American Lung Association, N.D.). Unfortunately, the aforementioned statistics are only a miniscule snapshot of the issues our natural systems are facing because of the construction i ndustry’s practices. While there are too many issues to list in this brief introduction, many environmental leaders have recognized that our society’ s sustainable future hinges upon improving the construction of structures, th ereby resulting in a less harmfu l and more resource efficient built environment.

PAGE 19

2 Statement of the Problem Residential construction in the United St ates has been marked by generations of static building practices, with widespread skepticism and resistance to any changes in methods, materials or procedures. Material advances have been modest at best; those that have been accepted by the industry typically foster greater productivity while reducing costs, such as replacing tongue and gr oove sheathing with sheets of plywood. Unfortunately, these risk-adverse attitudes have caused the construc tion and operation of the average American house to unnecessarily waste natura l resources and energy, thus contributing to our global environmental problems. The net result of the inefficient construc tion standards that have dominated the homebuilding industry are leav ing our descendants with ma ny burdens: land has been degraded, water supplies are running dangerously low in ma ny regions of the country, energy use is unwavering in th e face of record prices a nd certain raw materials are becoming scarce. These impacts are in direct contradiction to the id eals of sustainability, which hinges upon protecting future generati ons by enacting provisions, standards, protocols or controls on activit ies associated with limited or life-essential resources. In order to evoke a change toward green er building practices in the residential construction sector, there has to be a relativ ely simple approach to generate demand for an environmentally friendly produc t. It can be inferred that the intrinsic benefits derived from green building would not, in and of themselves, have the ability to spark a widespread consumer-based desire to purchas e a green home. The only way to generate the type of demand that is needed to en sure long-term viability of green building initiatives is to address traditional consumer concerns, such as lower operating costs.

PAGE 20

3 Fortunately, the residential construction industry has adopted a model for green construction demand stimulation, which re volves around rating guidelines. These guidelines serve as a method to standard ize and ensure exem plary environmental performance over a number of criteria. Thes e criteria typically focus on energy, water and material usage; site development; i ndoor environmental quality; durability and maintenance; and homeowner education. Most of the rating systems will designate the home as being environmentally, and therefor e economically, sound, which in turn serves to stimulate demand. This practice has resulted in appreciated market values for many of the homes built according to the various rating gu idelines, which is a primary indicator of success (Cole et al., 2005). Currently, there are approximately 35 different green rating systems for homebuilding throughout the country, which have evolved throughout this country for over 15 years. However, many of them have been developed in the past 5 years as a result of the environmental construction movement that is sweeping all sectors of construction. These guidelines serve to gui de builders in construc ting a home that is more environmentally sensitive using the aforementioned criteria. Most of the existing green assessment tools are local in scope, voluntary in nature, a nd provide certification based on a point driven system. Purpose The purpose of this study will be to analy ze the various rating systems that exist throughout the country in a quantitative manner, in order to determine any similarities or differences that exist between them. Subse quently, the rating systems will be compared against one another in an attempt to discove r which attributes may contribute to their

PAGE 21

4 success or shortcoming. Finally, this study will culminate in outlaying a process that will define how to create a successful green rating sy stem, specifically for the state of Florida. The overriding goal of this re search is to differentiate between the green residential construction standards that exist throughout the country in order to determine what factors may be the most important in their su ccess, so that the process of creating a rating system can be definitively developed. The fi nal process that will be outlined will provide a basic model for standard creation by providi ng a framework of importance; it will not attempt to create an environmental standard from scratch. Scope and Limitations This study’s primary analysis will be focu sed on green rating systems that exist for new single-family home construction. While there are many other standards throughout the U.S. for other types of structures (comme rcial, multi-family, etc) and other modes of construction (renovation, site planning, etc), this study will not specifically analyze these standards in a quantitative manne r. Additionally, the scope of this research was based on the residential rating systems that are located in the United States, mainly because they all contain overarching similari ties that provide a means fo r comparison. However, some of the literature that will be reviewed in Chapter 2 is focused on other types of rating systems both in the U.S. and abroad, because parallels can be draw n between studies of rating systems with contrasting scopes. Finally, this study’s in tention is only to analyze the green rating systems based on their compositi on to determine some of the generalities that exist between them, so that a model of su ccess can be created. It is outside of this study’s scope to try and determine how effective the rating systems are on an environmental level.

PAGE 22

5 Overview In Chapter 2, a comprehensive literature review will be conducted in order to discover the prevailing opinions of the research in this fiel d. Information that will be reviewed will consist of: the residential ra ting systems, reports on problems associated with green rating systems, reports on the bene fits associated with green rating systems, and information relating to the creation of a rating standard. Chapter 3 will outline the methodology for the remainder of this study, wh ich will largely re ly on analyzing the residential green rating system s that are currently in pl ace around the country. The standards will be broken down based on their bui lder guidelines, so that conclusions can be drawn about the commonalities that exis t between them. Additionally, information regarding the number of homes that each standard has rated will also be analyzed. Chapter 4 will communicate this study’s fi ndings. Each rating standard will be categorized based on the data that was anal yzed. Additionally, this information will provide the catalyst for determining success for a residential green rating system. Therefore, the final portion of this chapter wi ll consist of a process guide, which intends to serve as a methodology for creating a succe ssful green rating system for the state of Florida. Finally, Chapter 5 will offer conclusions and recommendations for future research that this thesis was not able to ach ieve, and the various appendices will show all of the raw data that was us ed throughout the analysis.

PAGE 23

6 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The first modern “green” building rating system, the Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), was developed in England 18 years ago (Kibert, 2005). Since that time, there have been many debates about the content, practicality, effectivene ss and utilization of environmental building rating systems. Many of these discussions ha ve been sparked over the past six years, because there has been a virtual plethora of rating systems entering the marketplace for single-family homes. Additionally, in the co mmercial construction sector, there has been a huge spike in rating system usage since the turn of the century, wh ich has also been a catalyst for debate. The purpose of this chapter is to compre hensively examine the various opinions that have been published regarding green ra ting systems to discover what the current positions are in the academic, professional and public arenas. Some of the research reviewed will cover green rating systems that deal with structur es other than singlefamily homes, such as the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for New Constructi on (LEED-NC), simply because a thorough analysis warrants their inclus ion. Also, some of the information contained herein stems directly from the various resi dential rating systems that were reviewed for this thesis. Sustainability Principles and Its Significance One of the lynchpins of a green rating syst em is the concept of sustainability, which has a history of being slightly ambiguous and misconstrued. According to the World

PAGE 24

7 Commission on Environment and Development, su stainability can be succinctly defined as being able to “meet the needs of the pres ent without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Kwong, 2004). This definition clearly states that modern society has a current obligation to its successors. Inherently difficulty to quantify, this duty is one that is enormously broad in scope, with issues that could include: finite natura l resources, fiscal mechanisms, so cial programs, waste disposal, agricultural practices, etc. In other words, the concept of sustainability encompasses three expansive dimensions: environmental, economic and social (Cole, 2003). In the context of the construction industry, however, the goals of sustainability can be pared into workable objectives. The green rating systems that have been adopted over the past two decades were produced in response to the need for a qua ntitative methodology for producing structures that adhere to the concepts of sustainabilit y. Although it is difficult, if not impossible, to categorically evaluate a building along the th ree dimensions of sust ainability, green rating systems certainly offer a promising start towards trailblazing a sustainable built environment. Although their current locus of concentration is primarily on the environmental branch of sustainability, it can be argued that green buildings offer a greater economic future while educating soci ety about the impacts that the construction industry is having on our natural systems. Within the built environment, there are ce rtain identifiable methods and processes for “greening” a building; wh ich is why many of the rating systems have rating sections that mirror one another. More specificall y, the nearly universa l categories of rating systems generally include: site selection, energy use, water conservation, sustainable

PAGE 25

8 materials, and occupant health (Gunshina n, 2004). By using these categories, green rating systems transform a design goal of su stainability into a feasible format by providing specific performance objectives and cr iteria (Gowri, 2004). Therefore, it is logical assumption that one of the overriding go als of a green rating system is to provide a means to achieving the lofty goal of sust ainability in the built environment. Other “Green” Options for Sustainable Single-Family Residential Structures It is now evident that sustainability is one of the primary goals of any green rating system, whether it is in the context of single-fa mily residential structur es or other types of buildings. However, there are other methods av ailable to attain a more sustainable future within the residential built environment. One of the concepts of sustainable ho me construction revolves around creating a structure based entirely on the theories of natural systems. This concept is one that typically utilizes modern architectural ideals to create a home that is more in harmony with its surroundings. For instance, in Sustainable Homes Trulove provides an example of a home that uses “found” materials for its construction, such as used automobile license plates for siding and reclaimed redwood for sheathing (Trulove, 2004). Similarly, Chiras provides a design guide in The Natural House for creating homes made out of alternative materials such as straw bale, rammed earth a nd cordwood (firewood) (Chiras, 2000). There are many design guides and resources available for building homes that are based heavily on natural systems and materi als. While these concepts may indeed contribute to the goals of sust ainable construction, the realit y is that many of these types of designs may never gain mainstream ma rket acceptance. The typical homebuyer generally does not perceive value in purely ecological ar chitectural techniques; buyers

PAGE 26

9 can be as risk adverse as th e construction industry. Theref ore, residential green rating systems offer the best alternative to “n atural homes” in the homebuilding industry because they offer a way to produce a tradit ional-looking home that is environmentally friendly (Oliver, 2005). General Overview of Residential Green Rating Systems In 1991, the first residential green rating system was created in Austin, TX, under the auspices of the local u tility company, Austin Energy. This progressive program served the prototypical stimulus for residen tial rating systems nationwide. Consequently, the 1990s saw approximately ten other rati ng systems spring up around the country, with roughly 25 additional systems being developed in the first half of the 2000s. Therefore, the proverbial stage has been set for rating sy stems in the residential market. Many of these programs are attempting to act as transformati onal agents in thei r local jurisdiction, municipality or region; the n eed for sustainable construction practices has been realized. Although there has been signi ficant progress made toward s green rating systems in the past 15 years, the definition of a “green building” remains somewhat of an enigma. Unequivocally, a green building is energy a nd resource efficient, waste and pollutant conscious, adaptable for longevity purposes, durable, and a healthy structure (Traugott, 1999). The remainder of this section will analyze how green rating systems accomplish these objectives, and what thei r other predominant goals are. Criteria Selection As previously stated, there are generally fi ve key aspects of any green rating system as it relates to its environmental goals, which are site selection, energy efficiency, water efficiency, material efficien cy and indoor environmental qu ality. The general procedure in which rating systems meet their environmenta l goals is to divide their objectives into

PAGE 27

10 related categories, and then to offer a range of criteria within each category. Therefore, the rating systems serve as gui des to homebuilders in how to create a structure that is cumulatively “greener”. The various categorie s and options are base d on the broad range of existing knowledge relating to the environmental impacts of construction (Cole et al., 2005). Therefore, when a rating system is created, the general procedure is to draw up the system based on the criteria that best su its its environmental goa ls, which relies on the incorporation of research that ha s proven them to be successful. According to Cole, the range of environm ental issues that could be addressed by any single rating system is absolutely enorm ous. Therefore, it is very important to organize them into a cohesive, useful fr amework that will foster successful design initiatives while selecting criteria that make assessments realistic. This is influenced by issues such as practicality and cost, which te nd to drive decisions in the early planning phases of a rating system. Additionally, internal issues for the rating system administrators also have an impact on thei r criteria selection, such as their level of agreement on a specific criterions effectivenes s. Finally, the assessments that are made by the rating systems must be repeatable and understandable for them to be useful in the marketplace (Cole, 1998). His four main in fluences on environmental issue organization and criteria selection are summarized in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Influences on Environmental Issue Organization and Criteria Selection 1. Practicality and cost of making the assessment itself 2. Ability to make repeat assessments with the same results 3. Whether the assessment creators had an overall agreement to its criteria 4. Ability of its users to fully comprehend the assessment’s results (Cole, 1998)

PAGE 28

11 Assessment of a Structure One of the paramount functions of green ra ting systems is to offer some sort of certification for the projects that complete their programs. This certification verifies compliance with the rating system, and most fr equently results in some sort of overall score being given to a struct ure (Cole, 2001). Similarly, green rating systems have two main methods in which they make their fi nal determination of how environmentally friendly a structure is. These methods are: a system with a score based on points, or a system with prescriptive requirements. A points based system is one that offers many possible alternatives to a prospective builder who can choose from a range of options to accumulate the required number of points fo r certification. Ofte n, however, points based systems will also contain required criteria th at cannot be excluded for any reason. On the other hand, a prescriptive system usually dictates specific methods for achieving certification. These systems often describe sp ecific, quantitative perf ormance levels that must be attained in order to pass the program (Cole, 2001). There are two distinct views that relate to the prescriptive versus point debate. Those who argue for a prescrip tive system often suggest th at they allow for a more “systems” based approach to homebuilding. Essentially, this mean s that a prescriptive program has built in controls to ensure that a home will perform to a high level, because there are specific crite ria outlaid to achieve certification. On the other hand, proponents of points based systems will argue that they offe r a degree of flexibility that is essential to builder acceptance of the programs. Because they offer a wide range of options to a builder, the belief is that they will be mo re willing to adopt these programs based upon the freedoms they offer.

PAGE 29

12 Regardless of a system’s assessment me thod, another feature common to rating systems is that various levels of certification are often offered. A multi-tiered certification enables the rating organization to distinguish be tween structures that have gone beyond the minimum requirements for certification (Cole, 1998). Layered certification processes can be found in both pr escriptive and points-based programs. Prescriptive programs will most often contain a larger amount of criteria for those homes that strive to achieve higher certificat ion levels. Conversel y, points-based programs typically require a greater num ber of points to be attained for their higher levels. However, some of the residential rating systems do not contain multiple levels of certification; they simply provide a single certification category. Participation As with structure assessments, there ar e two main ways in which a green rating system can achieve participation from the c onstruction industry. Most of the residential rating systems throughout the U.S. have chos en to make their programs voluntary, while a handful of jurisdictions ha ve decided to make their green programs mandatory. Voluntary programs have the distinct disadva ntage that they must satisfy conflicting goals; they need to achieve market and i ndustry acceptance while being able to remain credible to environmental act ivists (Cole, 1998). However, mandatory programs often face fierce resistance from builders, who f ear increased costs through code forced specifications (Ross, 2005). This topic will be developed further in the “Current Trends and Issues” section of the literature review. Incentives A handful of the residential green rating systems have implemented incentive systems to increase their market penetration ra tes. Typically, the pr ograms that are either

PAGE 30

13 administered by local utilities or municipa lities offer these incentives, and they are usually non-monetary enticements for the builders who decide to use their systems. Some common examples of the incentives th at are offered include: expedited permitting, reduced permitting fees, utility rebates and ot her types of preferential treatment. Additionally, marketing support and builder educ ation are some other tertiary incentives that most of the programs will offer around the country. Moreover, many municipalities have been offering incentives to commer cial projects for complying with their sustainability initiatives. These incentives mirror the examples that were discussed in this section, and they aim to foster greater participation from th e construction industry (Building Design and Construction, 2004). Besides rating system driven builder incenti ves, there are a few programs offered to homebuyers that have helped to increase market demand for green homes. Most often, these programs come in the fo rm of federal or state tax cr edits, such as the ones under the Energy Policy Act. These tax credits are available to consumers who purchase an Energy Star rated home or install energy efficiency f eatures, such as solar panels. Accordingly, there are tax credits available for homebuilder s that participate in the Energy Star New Home program, and also for the installation of individual efficien t building components such as windows, roofing, insulation and HVAC systems (United States Department of Energy, 2005A). Chapter 4 and the appendices also contain more information on this topic, relative to the residential green rating systems that were reviewed for this report. Verification Mechanisms One final aspect of residential green ra ting systems is the process by which they verify that the homebuilder has actually built the home according to the specifications of the rating system. While this information could not be found in any of the published

PAGE 31

14 literature that was reviewed, there was an ex tensive amount available on this topic from the rating system guidelines. They indicat e that there are three main ways that verification is accomplished, and the various rating systems approach this concept differently. One of the simplest ways in which veri fication occurs is simply through selfcertification. Under this method, a builder will sign an affidavit that they have built the home according to the rating standard. Us ually, they will be required to submit verification paperwork that outlays the green options that they have chosen, which is most often a checklist or point system. Another method for verification involves inspections, which is usually conducted by the administrators of the rating system. A designated representative will visit the hom e during various phases of construction to perform a visual inspection of the home, in or der to determine if the builder has followed the conditions outlaid by the green rating system The third and final way to verify that a home has been built according to the green sp ecifications is to have independent third parties actually inspect and/or test the homes for complia nce. This method often includes various testing protocols, such as a blower door test, to further confirm that the home is up to the rating standard’s performance expectations. As previously mentioned, many of the different rating systems will approach verification differently. So me rating systems exclusivel y utilize one of the three methods; other rating systems will use a combin ation of the three methods. Additionally, for those rating systems that have multiple leve ls of certification (such as 1-5 stars), they will often use stricter verification procedur es for those homes that are attempting to

PAGE 32

15 achieve a higher level of certification. Chap ter 4 will discuss the procedures that the different residential green rating systems have adopted. At this point in the study, the rating syst ems and their various features have been introduced. The next portion of this chapte r will look at the leve l of success they are having in their various marketplaces, which is crucial to the viability of any residential rating system. Marketplace Acceptance Until now, this report has focused mostly on the issues of sustainability and how they relate to residential green rating sy stems. However, this study would not be complete if it did not include a fundamental element of rating system existence: marketplace acceptance. If homebuyers or homebuilders do not perceive rating systems as being worthwhile, it is more than likely th at they would cease to exist. Fortunately, surveys have indicated that green rating sy stems are slowly beginning to gain market demand in their various locations (G rosskopf, 2003; HousingZone.com, 2003; GreenBiz.com, 2005). One such survey, which was conducted by the Corporate Realty Design and Management Institute, discovered that green building success is largely a function of the local market. According to the survey, the ma rkets that embrace the ideas of green buildings are typically the ones that have large corporati ons that understand and adopt environmentally friendly construction pr ocedures. Furthermore, it was discovered that many of the major metropolitan areas in this country are highly in-tune with the growing green building phenomenon, such as Los Angeles, Seattle, Washington D.C, Phoenix and Boston (GreenBiz.com, 2005). Cole et al. argue that the recent succe ss that green rating systems have been enjoying can be attributed to one of two fact ors: either the building industry is becoming

PAGE 33

16 more proactive towards creating change or th e industry is simply responding to market demand (Cole et al., 2005). However, it is likely that their recent success can be attributed to a mix of the former and the latter, as many data se ts have indicated. Nonetheless, Cole has identified the six main effects that the rating system’s widespread usage and organizational patterns have on green building. These effect s directly correlate to the market success of the green rating system s, and many of the effects also relate to the industry’s paramount environmental issues. For example, the proliferation of rating systems has created a common set of environm ental criteria, which in turn allows for greater effectiveness thro ugh improved communication between all stakeholders, including buyers (Cole, 1998). The other ke y results of this st udy are summarized in Table 2-2. Table 2-2: Effects of Rating System Usage 1. Provided a common and verifiable set of criteria and targets 2. Lowered operating, financing and insura nce costs; increas ed marketability 3. Properties can stay current within a dynamic marketplace 4. Future tenants will have benefits communicated to them 5. Building owners and design teams have form ulated effective environmental strategies 6. A body of knowledge and expertise has been created (Cole, 1998) Cost Increase Sensitivity Dr. Kevin Grosskopf conducted a study th at intended to discover what the consumers in the U.S. were willing to pay for green alternatives in their homes. It was determined that, on average, consumers were most interested in the alternatives that have a high initial cost and a corre sponding high return-on-invest ment. Also, the savings-toinvestment ratio and the maximum return-o n-investment are othe r key indicators for willingness to pay. In other words, consumer s are willing pay greater up front prices for the alternatives that will quickly repay th eir investments and continue to save them

PAGE 34

17 money in the long run. Finall y, his study found that the major ity (60%) of consumers are at least somewhat driven by “soft,” or intrinsic, cost benefits that th e installation of green alternatives can foster. In fact, these consumers indicated that they would choose to install soft cost-benefit alternatives, even if they will not completely return the added investment over the item’s life cycle (Grosskop f, 2003). Please refer to figures 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3 for a graphical repr esentation of his findings. Figure 2-1: Consumer Willingness-to-Pay Based on Cost and Return: Adapted (Grosskopf, 2003) Supplemental studies have also examined green alternative cost premiums on a quantitative level. Professional Builder ma gazine conducted a random survey of recent homebuyers and various builders in 2003; the organization acquired the sample contact information from an independent thir d party. Overall, 334 homebuyers and 317 homebuilders responded to email requests to complete the survey. The study found that homebuyers and homebuilders ha ve different perceptions on how much consumers are willing to spend for green upgrad es, in terms of actual dolla r amounts. According to the 38.30% 21.10% 29.30% 48.40% 20.10% 18.00% 38.10% 34.10% 17.80% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% WindowsWaterHVAC Low Cost, Low Return Medium Cost, Medium Return High Cost, High Return

PAGE 35

18 Figure 2-2: Consumer Willingness-to-Pay vs. Capital Cost Recovery: Adapted (Grosskopf, 2003) Figure 2-3: Consumer Willingness-to-Pay fo r “Soft” Benefits: Adapted (Grosskopf, 2003) -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 00.511.522.5 Increased Time Until Capital Cost Recovery (Years)Change In Willingness-To-Pa y 28.30% 13.30% 10.80% 26.10% 16.80% 35.30% 12.00% 12.80% 19.80% 14.00% 15.30% 6.80% 11.50% 30.80% 30.30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SolarFuel CellsUltra HPs Very Likely Likely Neither Unlikely Very Unlikely

PAGE 36

19 survey, homebuilders tend to underestimate how much consumers will spend on green alternatives, which is shown in Figure 2-4 (HousingZone.com, 2003). It should be noted that the figures that depict information from the Professional Builder survey contain data from 2000, 2001 and 2003, which correspond to the ye ars that this survey was given. How Much Extra Will Buyers Spend on Green Features?$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000 200020012003 What Builders Say What Buyers Say Figure 2-4: How Much Consumers are Willing to Pay for Green Upgrades – Their Perspective vs. a Builders Pers pective (HousingZone.com, 2003) Therefore, it seems evident that consumers in the U.S. are willing to spend a significant amount of money on green upgrades for their homes, providing that the upgrade will be a good long-term investment or offer deeply intrinsic values. Additionally, it appears as t hough homebuilders have underestimated the potential for the marketplace to accept high-cost green alternatives. The next section of this study will analyze what green features buye rs are most interested in.

PAGE 37

20 Consumer Green Upgrade Preferences The Professional Builder Magazine survey also found some interesting trends in consumer preferences relating to green upgr ades. The survey found that the upgrades buyers most desired in a new home are not luxury based item s, but rather those that increase energy efficiency. When the res pondents were asked which upgrades are most important to them, they categorically chose en ergy efficiency, which is depicted in Figure 2-5 (HousingZone.com, 2003). Unfortunately, ho wever, this study also found that there is a disconnect between the importance that homebuyers place on green upgrades and what that the builders believe the consumer s want, which is displayed in Figure 2-6. More specifically, only 70% of homebuilders surveyed believed that energy efficiency upgrades are very important to homebuyers, while 92% of the surveyed buyers indicated that they are very important. Therefore, according to the survey, it seems as though homebuyers and homebuilder currently have different expectations when it comes to environmentally friendly upgrade preferences and their corresponding costs. However, the studies also indicate that homebuyers are re ady to incorporate green features into their homes. The next section of this report wi ll examine the builder’s perspective on green building. The Builders’ Perspective In order for any green rating systems to be successful, they must generate a significant amount of market demand. However, if the market demands are going to be satisfied, it is imperative for the construction professionals to be willing to adopt the rating systems. Therefore, there are two dis tinct ways in which th e green rating system demands can be met: consumers can “pull” bu ilders into the system s through their wants, or builders can “push” the rating systems onto their buyers by proliferating them. Either

PAGE 38

21 Figure 2-5: Consumer Upgrade Pref erences: Adapted (HousingZone.com, 2003) Figure 2-6: Sustaina ble Upgrades: Consumer Demand vs. Builder Perception: Adapted (HousingZone.com, 2003) scenario, or a combination of both, will result in rising usage patterns of residential green rating systems. Fortunately, a study that was conducted by Building Design and Construction in 2003 found that construction professionals ha ve an increasing awareness about the Three Most Important Things When Buying a New House87% 66% 50% 34% 21.00% 15.00% 19.00% 94% 40% 59% 19% 14.00% 9.00% 19.00% 88% 60% 53% 28% 23.00% 22.00% 9.00%Energy-Efficient Features Kitchen Cabinet Upgrade Improved Indoor Air Quality Finished Room in Basement Exterior Trim Upgrade Jacuzzi Tub Recycled-Content Products 2000 2001 2003 Extremely/Very Important Features in a New Home (Asked of Consumers)68.00% 61.00% 48.00% 92.00% 86.00% 80.00% 92.00% 97.00% 79.00% Energy-Efficient Features Improved Air Quality Resource Conserving Features 2000 2001 2003 Extremely/Very Important Features in a New Home (Asked of Builders)61.00% 54.00% 30.00% 59.00% 57.00% 24.00% 69.00% 68.00% 37.00% Energy-Efficient Features Improved Air Quality Resource Conserving Features 2000 2001 2003

PAGE 39

22 principles of green building. Their study incl uded a survey of 498 of their readers, which represented a multitude of disciplines within in the construction industry including: commercial and residential contra ctors, design firms, developers, etc. Overall, their study found that 97% of their respondents saw th e green building phenomenon as growing. Additionally, 81% of the responde nts stated that they had experience or interest in sustainable design (Cassidy, 2003). Therefore, there is evid ence that the green building movement is gaining recognition by constructio n professionals, which is essential to its success. As previously stated, there is the poten tial for builders to “push” green rating systems onto their clients. While evidence ha s shown that consumer demand is currently acting as the catalyst for green home construc tion, there are numerous methods in which a “pushing” procedure can be carried out, a nd consumer education is one of the most powerful tools available (Wilson, 2005; Dooley and Rivera, 2004). More specifically, a focused marketing campaign that details the benefits of owning a green structure can have astounding effects on a potential buyer. On the most basic level, there is a consensus that the most effective way to market a green home is to advertise it as a “money saver” (Power, 2005; BizEd, 2005; Oliver, 2005; Stromberg, 2002; Dooley and Rivera, 2004). If a consumer can be shown data that indicates that the increased cost of green alternatives will be offset by monthly utility bill savings, most buyers would be willing to consider in stalling the features. In addition to potential cost savings, ther e are other benefits of a green home that should be communicated to a prospective buyer. Indoor air quality improvements, water and resource efficiencies, increased durabilit y, and reduced maintenance are just some of

PAGE 40

23 the highlights that many builders choose to emphasize (Stromberg, 2002). Some builders also emphasize more intangible, intrinsic be nefits to their buyers, such as: reduced dependence on foreign fossil fuels, minimizi ng the amount of air pollution generated by their home, etc (Power, 2005). Builders need to begin realizing that th e green home market is growing throughout the country. As more local organizations de cide to include a re sidential green rating system in their area, the demand for green homes is certain to increase. Therefore, the builders also need to be properly educated on environmentally friendly homes and the benefits that they can bring to their comp any and their reputation. Generally speaking, most of the financial advantages that green homes offer consumers also directly translate into better built, more comfortable homes with reduced maintenance requirements (Power, 2005; BizEd, 2005, November/December). These types of advantages not only benefit consumers, but they also bene fit builders by offering niche marketing, differentiation opportunities and reduced “call backs” (Alameda County Waste Management Authority, 2003; Oliver, 2005). The preceding section of this report an alyzed market issues that surround residential green rating systems. It was di scovered that consumers have a high demand for energy efficiency in their homes, but builders tend to underest imate this fact. Additionally, builders need to begin realizing the marketing potential that green homes present. The next section of this thesis will analyze some of the current trends and issues as they relate to residential green rating sy stems, and the potential impacts they have on them.

PAGE 41

24 Current Trends and Issues The aforementioned section of this thesis provided evidence that green construction is gaining steam in the marketplace. Regardless of this fact, there are still numerous issues that revolve around th e green rating systems and their use. There have been numerous critiques written that focus on th e structure, theory, implementation and purpose of the green rating systems. Additiona lly, one of the critical stigmas that still haunt green rating systems is that building a gr een home is too expensive. These issues will be reviewed in this section of the repor t, which will be crucial to the results and conclusions that are generated in further chapters of this study. Criteria Selection As previously mentioned, criteria sel ection is a paramount function of a rating system when it is being created for a given ma rket. The primary difficulty is selecting criteria that are effective in their environmental goals and are accepted by the construction industry as viable procedures. Moreover, these criteria must also be appropriate within the regional scope of the rating system. However, because there are so many different rating systems that have been developed, newer rating systems have the advantage of being able to leve rage past research and incorpor ate preexisting criteria into their systems. Nevertheless, they must be ca reful to select points that make regional sense and are most important to their stakeholders. One of the current overriding characteristic s of residential green rating systems is that they offer a host of criteria to their builders. Many of these items are construction methods that established builders already pursue, which therefore makes the rating system more attractive to new entrants (Dool ey and Rivera, 2004; Schendler and Udall, 2005). However, this practice results in some distinct consequences that often reduce

PAGE 42

25 their credibility. Firstly, a builder that has the ability to certify a home largely based on the practices that they al ready conduct may not be crea ting a home that is more environmentally friendly, at least by the sta ndards of sustainability. Secondly, having a huge amount of criteria to chose from in an almost menu-like format tends to create a structure that is only slightly more efficient. The primary challenge of all rating systems is to offer a “systems-thinking” approach that will enable ultimate efficiency levels to be achieved (Cole et al., 2005; Gunshinan, 2004). That being said, the issue of proper crit eria selection that facilitates systems thinking is one that is partic ularly tricky. Certain assessment systems, such as LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC), have attempted to limit the amount of points they offer, at least when compared to some of the reside ntial systems that offer almost five times the number of criteria. Moreover, limiting the num ber of criteria tends to make each point on an assessment system more valuable. Therefor e, one direct effect of criteria limitation is that builders strive to achie ve points simply for certificat ion purposes, and not for the environmental benefits that they conve y. This type of “point mongering” can detrimentally affect the perf ormance of the building and the reputation of the rating system, because systems thinking is margin alized (Schendler and Udall, 2005). Therefore, a rating system committee must be deliberate and careful when they select points. It is a difficult task that must be highly prioritized, because the success of the rating system will rely on the selection results. Point Weighting If a rating system has decided to use a point-based system for certification, the process of weighting the select ed criterions is perhaps just as difficult and important as selection. The weighting of points is paramount to the success of a ra ting standard at an

PAGE 43

26 environmental level. Most of the residentia l green rating systems that were analyzed for this study tend to assign between one a nd ten points to their criterions. Generally speaking, a criteria’s point value is based on the perceived cost implications and difficulty of achieving its object ive. Cole has argued that weightings are based on either sound scientific evidence of a criterion’s environmental impacts or on the social values that society perceives the crit eria to represent (Col e, 2001). Nevertheless, the weight of any point will have a profound effect on a building aggregate point total, and thus on the relative environmental performa nce of a structure. Therefore, the weight that a criterion is given must be based on rational evidence, thereby portraying to a rating system’s users the relative importan ce of said point (Cole, 2001). While weighting is such an important task, it proves to be one of the most difficult for rating systems. One of the primary difficult ies is that many of the criteria are difficult to quantifiably classify, which can make it ha rd to assign any logica l point value to. A commonly raised criticism of rating systems is that their point values are wholly arbitrary or subjective, and that some low-cost criteri a achieve the same point value as some highcost criteria (Schendler and Udall, 2005). Additionally, some of th e high-cost, high-point value criterions are ignored by builders w ho are worried about the final construction costs. Unfortunately, often times the points th at are skipped have the potential to provide the highest levels of environmental benefits. A solution to the aforementioned problem lie s in mandating certain criteria that can have the highest benefits attributed to them However, because most of the residential green rating systems are voluntary in nature there is concern that mandating difficult construction practices will lead to decreased industry use of the rating systems, which

PAGE 44

27 will defeat the purpose of the programs entirely. Therefore, a generally accepted solution to this problem at the current time is to sl owly mandate criterions as the rating systems become more highly utilized in the marketpl ace (Cole, 2003), or to o ffer a wide range of attractive incentives to the builders who use a green rati ng system (Cassidy, 2003). Another solution that has been emergi ng in the residential marketplace is by making an entire rating system prescriptive. Prescriptive programs offer the rating system administrators the poten tial to highly control the en vironmental performance of a home, simply because they can mandate 100% of their criteria. This issue will be further discussed in Chapter 4 as it pertains to the residential green rating systems in the US. Overall Costs of Building Green Another frequent criticism of the green bu ilding movement is that environmentally friendly homes are too costly to construct, or that the market is not willing to buy a green home (Seiter, 2005). However, the previous section of this report has proven that consumers are willing to pay for green upgrades that have a good return-on-investment. Moreover, studies have also shown that the cost of building a green structure is only marginally greater than a non-green, traditi onal structure (Kats et al., 2003; Matthiessen & Morris, 2004; Carlton, 2004; Sichelman, 2005). One such study was conducted by the cost-consulting firm, Davis Langdon Adamson. They discovered th at there is not a statistic ally significant relationship between building a green commercial build ing and increased construction costs (Matthiessen & Morris, 2004). Additionally, a study that was completed for California’s Sustainable Building Task Force concluded that the average green premium for a LEED certified commercial building was slightly less than 2% (Kats et al., 2003).

PAGE 45

28 Residential buildings also ha ve modest historical increa ses in prices for gaining a green certification. According to WCI Comm unities, Inc., who is considered a “big green builder” in the state of Florida, the average cost premium for a green home is as much as 5% (Carlton, 2004). Furthermore, a developer who is planning on building a 350 unit green community at Lakewood Ranch in Florida expects that by using a residential green rating system they will be adding only $1,000 to $3,000 to the cost of each home (Sichelman, 2005). However, it should be noted that residentia l cost upgrades could be highly variable, depending on: the level of certification s ought, local price conditions and many other factors. Prices can fluctuate anywhere fr om an actual price reduc tion to thousands of additional dollars, with price reduction potenti al coming from material reuse, equipment downsizing, financial incentives, etc. Nonethel ess, the previous studi es have shown that building green structures does not necessarily add significantly to the first costs of construction, which is a commonly held mi snomer throughout the construction industry. In addition to overall costs of building green, there are models that have been developed that attempt to quantify the benef its of building green. Kwong’s model states that as long as the ratio of net future benefits to investment costs is greater than one, the green project will be accepted. Included in his net future benefits are the following: direct cost savings including initial savi ngs, utility savings, maintenance savings, and deferred replacement cost; indirect gains including productivity gains, health care cost reduction, improved quality of life, and pr estige factor; reduced environmental externalities including reduced penalties, quot a trading, and health cost savings. This

PAGE 46

29 model is one that is intended to provide a framework for id entifying the potential cost issues that go beyond initia l capital outlay (Kwong, 2004). A final component of the cost equation of green building is the idea of Energy Efficient Mortgages (EEMs), which have beco me more popular in recent years. These mortgages allow for homebuyers to qualif y for loans that would otherwise be unaffordable to them, by taking utility savings into account. The proj ected utility savings can translate into additional income for a hom ebuyer, thus improving their debt-to-equity ratio. Before 2003, many lenders were reluctant to offer EEM programs, mainly because the underwriting process was cumbersome. However, Fannie Mae has recently streamlined this process, whic h paves the way for more EEMs to be greater utilized in the near future (Pasha, 2005). According to th e Federal Citizen Information Center, EEMs often result in an actual monthly savings in a homeowners mortgage as a result of the utility savings. For example, a hom e that receives r oughly $5,000 of energy improvement (in-line with industry estimates ) may have an increased monthly mortgage payment, but it also has a lower monthly net cost when energy bills are factored in. This example is represented in tabular form in Table 2-3. Table 2-3: Energy Efficient Mortgage Savings Older Existing Home Same Home with Energy Improvements Home Price (90% Mortgage, 8% Interest) $150,000 $154,816 Loan Amount $135,000 $139,334 Monthly Payment (Only Principle and Interest) $991 $1,023 Energy Bills $186 $93 True Monthly Cost of Home Ownership $1,177 $1,116 Monthly Savings $61 Source: Federal Citizen In formation Center, 2006)

PAGE 47

30 Life Cycle Assessments Another issue that is related to the costs of building green is one of the most highly debated in the environmental assessment aren a: Life Cycle Cost Analysis. A life cycle cost analysis is a mechanism by which the complete environmental impacts of a multitude of issues can be assessed, so that appropriate alternative decisions can be accomplished. According to Cole, Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) are generally accepted as the only valid method in which comp arisons can be made between materials, components, elements, services and w hole buildings (Cole et al., 2005). Internationally, there are many tools that have been developed for performing LCAs. In North America, ATHENA is one of the most widely used models, which was created by the ATHENA Sustainable Material s Institute in Canada. Other models include: EcoQuantum, EcoEffect, and ENVEST (Cole et al, 2005). The ATHENA model has evolved over its history to where its so ftware now includes provisions for 90 to 95 percent of the structural and envelope sy stems typically used in residential and nonresidential buildings. The overriding purpose of this model is to minimize the flows of natural resources and en ergy to and from nature, in respect to the chosen construction materials. In order to ac hieve this goal, the ATHENA m odel has built an inventoried database of construction materi als that tracks the usage of raw resources, energy by type, water, and pollution emissions to air, wate r and land. Therefore, an ATHENA user can input various alternative material choices into the program to receive a comparative analysis in order to make a more info rmed decision (Trusty and Horst, 2002). LCA residential case studies have been conducted in order to understand the effects of material selection within the housing ma rket. One such study was conducted in 1999 for a 2400 square foot custom home, that was to be located in Toronto market. Three

PAGE 48

31 alternative designs for the home’s structur e were considered: traditional wood framing, light gauge steel framing, and insulated c oncrete formwork. Overall, this study discovered that the wood framing design was th e most environmentally friendly choice in five out of the six benchmarks, which were : embodied energy, global warming potential, air toxicity, water toxicity, weighted resource use and so lid wastes. The steel design proved to be superior in terms of the solid waste measure, while the wood framing took the other five categories (Trusty and Meil, 1999). Fay, Treloar and Iyer-Ragina conducted a nother residential case study in 2000. This study did not use one of the preexist ing LCA models, but rather used a unique procedure that was intended to model th e energy use of alternative materials and processes. One of the major concerns wa s discerning between em bodied (initial) energy (used to manufacture the materials) and opera tional energy over a component’s useful life cycle. The model intended to analyze these different types of energies and determine the payback period associated with the material which is defined as the point at which operational energy savings from the energy efficient alternative exceeds the initial embodied energy value of the material. Over all, this study found that the payback period for additional insulation added to the home was approximately 25 years (Fay et al., 2000). This study serves as an illustration that there are numerous LCA tools that exist for a construction or design professional, whic h is an indication that there are competing models. Fortunately, competing models allow for comparisons, which also leads to more efficient and effective protocols. While LCAs offer a more quantitative analys is of one of the most contested issues in sustainable construction (material selection) there are still issues with their use.

PAGE 49

32 Firstly, there needs to be a more compre hensive database established for the LCA software, so that they can be more all-encomp assing of the true effects of each material. However, it is difficult to build this database because many of the material suppliers are not willing to supply their product data to an LCA clearinghouse, mainly because of confidentiality concerns or th e effects that an analyses may have on their product’s use (Trusty and Horst, 2002). Additionally, another issue that remains prevalent in the use of LCAs is the concept of benchmarking. In order for LCAs to become more cost effective and universal in their approaches, there is a need for “benchmark” buildings to serve as a comparative basis for material selection. In other words, LCA outputs often do not provide for apples to apples comparison acr oss buildings, mainly because each structure is inherently different in its design and construction (Trusty and Horst, 2002). Therefore, benchmark buildings would offer a higher leve l of decision making by being able to have a greater understanding of the LCA’s output. Regardless of the current shortcomings that are inherent to LCAs, they are extremely valuable tools. They can be utili zed by rating standard creators in order to make decisions in criteria sele ction, which is a very important issue. Also, they are beginning to be built-in aspects of some rating systems, which ask the builders to perform LCAs to determine the best course of acti on. In either circumstance, LCAs should be more widely used within the realm of resi dential green rating systems because of the advantages they offer their users, and ultimately the sustainable future. Voluntary vs. Mandatory Standards Another debate about residential green ra ting guidelines relates to the voluntary nature that many of these systems currently adhere to. As previously mentioned, Cole points out that voluntary systems have to be attractive to construc tion professionals and

PAGE 50

33 buyers while maintaining cred ibility in the en vironmental community, which are two conflicting goals (Cole, 1998). That being said, the current primary goal of voluntary standards is to garnish market demand. Without it, there can be no changes in the environmental landscape of the built environment. However, a couple of the residential green rating systems have become mandatory in their municipalities, which is somethi ng that home construction professionals are vehemently opposed to across the country (Ross, 2005; Cole, 1998; Bowen, 2005). Most of the opposition to mandating green standards is entrenched in the perceived difficulties with complying with green standards that be come adopted into building codes. Many construction professionals believe that code approval means higher costs to them, which is why they do not want code mandated environmental standards (Ross, 2005). Nonetheless, mandatory standards offer a unique opportunity fo r residential green rating systems because the minimum certification standard for a green home becomes an obligation of all builders. If such a system was implemented, there is the potential that green standards may serve to ac t even more as differentiation mechanisms for builders. This is possible because consumers will quickly become used to purchasing an environmentally friendly home. Therefore, there could be an increase in consumer demand for ultra efficient structures, and th en multi-tiered rating systems would then begin to dominate the residen tial green rating system landscape. However, the potential for such a mandate to come to fruition is slim at the current time, mainly because of the cost implications that munici palities would incur with rigoro us code inspections and the opposition that major homebuilders would present. However, the rising costs of energy and increasing effects of global warming may se rve as catalysts for local jurisdictions to

PAGE 51

34 begin considering placing environmental perf ormance standards in their building codes (Cole, 1998). Code Approval In some locations, adopting any new provision into the building codes can be a highly difficult undertaking, not to mention a dopting an entire residential green rating system. While a few local jurisdictions ha ve adopted the US Green Building Council’s LEED program for public projects, there are onl y a small handful of municipalities that have made a residential standard comp letely mandatory (Cassidy, 2003). Although it would be presumptuous to expect green rating systems to be mandated by local municipalities, there is the pot ential to get incremental gree n provisions adopted into the building codes, which helps to proliferat e the goals of the rating systems. A study was conducted by the Development Center for Appropriate Technology (DCAT) in 2002 that analyzed building code approval for green building techniques. This study surveyed 198 “code officials” a nd 56 “code users” in order to gain their perspectives on the issue. The results found there are barriers asso ciated with building officials approving green building methods. Alte rnative methods are frequently denied if they are in clear conflict with the intent of the code or if they lack adequate background information. Additionally, applications fo r alternative methods are often avoided altogether because there is the percepti on that acquiring the supporting information needed will be too costly or cumbersome. Th erefore, in order for green provisions to be enacted into the codes, they recommende d the following methods: use a sufficient amount of supporting information with respect to safety con cerns, keep strong lines of communication with code officials and the in tents of the code provision, provide contact information for other building code offici als that may have knowledge about the

PAGE 52

35 proposed provision, and to resubmit a denied application with additional supporting information (Eisenberg et al., 2002). Therefore, the previous study has provide d evidence that is difficult to obtain acceptance for green provisions into the codes. However, with the proper planning, it is possible to have certain elements adopted, wh ich represent baby steps toward the gallant effort of a more sustainable future. Local Factors As the previous section of this report has indicated, it is important to have the local government’s support for a green building initiative. However, in addition to code approval, there are a host of ot her local factors that can greatly influence a residential green rating system. A statement by the NAHB Research Center captures the essence of this issue succinctly: Green building is also uniquely local. B ecause climates, customs, availability of materials and preferences vary so much throughout the nation, green building measures that are essential in some areas may not be appropriate for others. (NAHB Research Center, 2002) It is extremely important that a local gr een building guideline contain provisions for the variety of local issues that homebuild ers will face, especially those that are of significant environmental importance. For instance, rating systems that exist primarily in wet climates will have water use options, such as rain barrel harvesting for irrigation, that will not be practical in drier climates. Similarly, the criteria for energy efficiency will most likely be significantly diffe rent for rating standards that function in cold climates versus those that function in hot climates. Th erefore, standard creators must be in tune with the pressing local environmental issu es, if the building science and technology behind their system is going to have credibilit y. John Carmody, director of the Center for

PAGE 53

36 Sustainable Building Research at the Univer sity of Minnesota has commented on this issue by saying “If you look at the guidelines of programs across the country, about 80% of them are the same, but regional issues matter” (Building Design and Construction, 2004). While some of the obvious regional issu es are related simply to latitudinal differences, there are some more subtle concer ns that are sensitive to local markets. For instance, logistical constraints can make it impractical and inefficient for certain green materials to be required by a rating standard (Carlton, 2004). Additi onally, there can be unintended consequences of cer tain criteria, such as mold problems in humid climates that can result from constructing a home to be extremely airtight (Carlton, 2004). One of the major issues that remains prevalen t, in terms of the need to have locally sensitive guidelines, is that many areas ar ound the country attempt to simply adopt an existing rating guideline as their own. However, this practice tends to ignore the need to tailor criteria to local issues, unless the ra ting system administrators make a concerted effort to localize it. Consequently, ther e can be a danger associated with a local municipality or organization attempting to take an existing rating standard and simply adopting it for their area. Cole has asserted that although there can be value associated with sharing rating guidelines across locations the risk of homoge nization and reduced sensitivity to regionally appr opriate design strategies can hinder environmental progress (Cole, 2003). Therefore, as green rating systems increase in popularity around the country, there must be an edu cational initiative that expl ains the importance of local issues to those who choose to create new standards.

PAGE 54

37 This section has discussed many of the current issues and tr ends that are relative to green rating systems. Many of these issues will be primary concerns throughout Chapters 4 and 5. The next portion of this study will briefly discuss some of the previous studies that have been conducted on resi dential green rating systems. Previous Studies on Residential Green Rating Systems in the U.S. While there have been many successful inte rnational green building initiatives, the focus of this study remains on programs within the U.S. This section will discuss some of the previous comparisons that have been conducted of the American programs, while Chapter 4 will focus on the study that was conducted for this report. Just as there has been a voluminous am ount of information written about the generalities of green rating sy stems, there have been many comparisons made between the various programs that exist nationwide. Typically, these analyses will address the technical content that exists within the rating systems without delving into the context for which they were developed (Cole, 2003). However, the analyses that have been produced thus far represent a good starting point for future studies that may take a harder look at the intentions of the rating systems. There are a number of resources that co mpare rating standards in a relatively limited manner. This means that the comparisons only focus on a couple of the existing standards, which usually compare a national st andard to other national standards, or a national standard to existing lo cal standards. Some of thes e comparisons have looked at the differences between the NAHB’s Model Home Guidelines and the USGBC’s LEED for Homes. A common consensus that emer ges from these comparisons is that the NAHB’s standard is one that is more customi zable to local markets and therefore is more suited to the average homebuilder, while the USGBC’s program is generally considered

PAGE 55

38 to be slated toward higher priced and more sophisticated homes (Oliver, 2005; Sichelman, 2005). However, this hypothesis re mains untested at the current time period because LEED for Homes is still in pilot ph ase and has not yet been fully implemented. Another common type of limited compar ison involves simply looking at the programs on the surface. These evaluations ar e not highly useful to the rating standard aficionado, but they provide a general overv iew of the programs to those who may be unaware of them. Most often these types of comparisons contain tables that quickly compare the programs. One such example is Environmental Building News’s article in May of 2002, which compared five existing residential programs by looking at their implementation method (voluntary vs. mandato ry), their incentives and their contact information (BuildingGreen, Inc., 2002). Anot her example of this kind of comparison is Yost’s table that details 23 resident ial programs and displays their program administrators, their dates of inception, their contact information and a short description of the program. This comparison also offe rs a narrative section about six existing programs, and concludes by stating that systems engineering is often lost in the game of point accumulation (Yost, 2002). A third type of rating system compar ison involves heavily investigating one specific standard against a coupl e of other systems, in order to determine the strengths or weaknesses of the particular pr ogram in question. Usually, th ese types of investigations are sponsored by the rating system administra tors, with the overall goal of showing the benefits of their system. One such inve stigation was conducted by the Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Company, which runs the TEP Gu arantee Home Program. This comparison showed various energy measures that the program requires versus the Environmental

PAGE 56

39 Protection Agency’s (EPA) Energy Star Progra m, the Earth Advantage Plus Program and the Certainteed Program. This comparison hi ghlighted the rigorous testing that this program requires, which will be seen in more detail in the Results chapter of this study. A similar study analyzed Hawaii’s BuiltGreen program to discover how a BuiltGreen home compared to a “control house”. It showed that th e BuiltGreen house had much lower average temperatures across the exte rior, attic, west-faci ng bedroom and eastfacing dining room. These type s of studies represent important research in the arena of residential green rating systems, largely because there is little comp arative data available regarding a home’s specific performance. However, there has not yet been a comprehensive study of green home performan ce around the country. Therefore, one of the goals of this thesis is to o ffer a starting point for analysis. A final type of comparison that is commonly conducted is much more similar to this report’s methodology. These studies typica lly analyze a wide range of rating systems in order to make some genera lizations about the state of green building. One such study was conducted by Nathan Engstrom for the Univ ersity of Texas at Austin, in which he looked at 14 different rating systems around th e country. In his st udy, he declared that certain rating programs were “darker shades of green” because of the manner in which they certify a home and verify that the pr ogram was followed. However, much of his research was centered upon assumptions about what makes a program green, rather than specific objective criteria (Engstrom, 2003). Another similar study was conducted by reSource Rethinking Building, Inc. for the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This study analyzed eight existing rating systems in the United States and six in Ca nada, in order to make a suggestion on the

PAGE 57

40 proper program to adapt for their market. This study found that a successful rating program was one that was reasonably acces sible by builders, has a high degree of flexibility and incorporates builder educa tion. This conclusion was made by comparing the rating standards for verification proce dures, flexibility, differentiation between certification levels, range of points for criteria and range of environmental performance for criteria (reSource Rethinking Building, Inc ., n.d.). Raymond J. Cole for conducted a similar study for the Stakeholders in British Columbia Green Buildings Ad-Hoc Committee, which goes into great detail abou t the various options that green rating systems currently employ. Additionally, he co mparatively assessed four different rating systems so that a recommendation could be made to the committee about which rating tool they should adopt. His fi nal proposal was based on a care ful analysis of many of the topics that this report has addressed (Cole, 2001). Therefore, it is evident that there has been multiple comparisons conducted of green rating systems with various methodologie s and goals. As previously mentioned, these studies represent importa nt educational information about the assessment systems, which helps to offer improvement possibilities to rating system administrators. Since the majority of the rating systems in this country are relatively new, there is a distinct possibility that comparisons will prove to be important to the evolution and refinement of the green rating systems. The next potion of this report will review some of the literature that has been produced regarding the process fo r creating a rating system. The Process for Creating a Re sidential Green Rating System The process for creating a residentia l green rating system hinges upon the culmination of the information that has been presented thus far. There are multiple

PAGE 58

41 issues, variables and needs to be considered when a rating system is written, and this section of this report will introduce some of the existing information on this topic. For instance, any organization that intends on creating a rating system must take local climate, market preferences, builder willingne ss, environmental issues, and the structure of the rating system into cons ideration when they write a new standard. Therefore, it is important to have a rating sta ndard that is highly interrelate d with all of the important issues, which is how the model that is devel oped in the Results sect ion of this study will be constructed. Thus, the information provide d herein will be utilized in the Results chapter of this study, which will aim to create a process standard for the state of Florida. In addition to the information that has b een provided thus far on the structure and issues relating to residential green rating systems, there are a couple of resources that are specific to the process of creating a pr ogram. Specifically, Building Design and Construction published a model for developi ng a rating standard based on surveys of local government officials, developers and members of academia. Their study is intended to provide local legislative officials with a framework of the important factors that must be considered when writing a green assessmen t tool (Building Desi gn and Construction, 2004). The results of this study are shown in table 2-4. Table 2-4: Green Buildin g Legislative Issues 1. Develop a resource guide to complement legislation. 7. Offer technical assistance to Building Teams to bring them up to speed and to build the best projects possible. 2. Work with the design/development community to create your program. 8. Use scorecards to educate Building Teams and to keep count of buildings’ sustainable progress. 3. Government should lead by example. 9. Strive for an integrated design approach to development. 4. Don’t aim too high at first. 10. Keep your program flexible and review it regularly with stakeholders.

PAGE 59

42 Table 2-4. Continued 5. Localize your program, considering climate, water and energy issues specific to your regions. 11. Create administrative incentives for green buildings. 6. Customize your program to “hot” markets. In the initial stages, don’t try to do everything at once. 12. Remove legislative, regulatory and administrative obstacles to green building. Source: Building Desi gn and Construction, 2004 Upon examination, it becomes clear that many of their suggestions hinge upon the issues that have been presented in this st udy. Due to the complexity of a green rating system, it is important to provide a clear process guide for creating one. Their number six suggestion is one that is repeated by many experts in the field, which basically asserts that you need to have existing market demand in place before a rating system is written, if it is to be a success (Alameda Coun ty Waste Management Authority, 2003; NAHB Research Center, 1999). Moreover, the overriding theme in Building Design and Construction’s recommendation is that a succes sful rating system is one that considers a host of variables and issues, so that a cohesi ve standard can be created with long-term goals. This guide will be utilized further in the Resu lts chapter of this thesis. Another important resource guide for the creation of a residential green rating standard was published by the NAHB Research Center in 1999. In this manual, they explain many of the issues that a local m unicipality or Home Builder’s Association (HBA) must focus on when writing a new asse ssment system. Their study resulted from numerous communications with many of the green rating systems that existed around the country. The first portion of their manual focuses on the process of creating a rating system, while the second section focuses on the common environmental issues that should be considered by a standa rd. A brief summary of thei r process related suggestions

PAGE 60

43 can be seen in Table 2-5 (NAHB Research Center, 1999). For the purposes of this study, the first portion of the manual will be utilized more fully in the Results chapter. Table 2-5: Steps in Developing a Green Builder Program Step One Determine Interest Step Two Establishing a Committee Step Three Setting Objectives Step Four Determining Partners Step Five Determining Program Coverage Step Six Setting Up the Budget Step Seven Considering Existing Programs Step Eight Establishing the Certification Process Step Nine Choosing Program Resources Step Ten Establishing Program Structure Step Eleven Creating the Program Checklist Source: NAHB Research Center, 1999 In summary, there are many localized issues that are imperative to the success of a new residential green rating system. Fortuna tely, there are a coupl e of existing guides that serve to simplify the pro cess of creating a new standard. However, this study intends to build upon the prior knowle dge that has been written t hus far, so that a more comprehensive and relevant guide can be available for the state of Florida. Conclusion Significant effort has been dedicated to th e topic of green building assessments. Many studies discuss the struct ural opportunities and differen ces of these systems, while others have focused on marketplace acceptance. Also, the issues of debate are numerous and varied, all of which will be considerations in later sections of this report. Regardless of the opinions on this topi c, one thing remains clear: green rating system use is burgeoning in the construction indus try. The simple fact that so much debate exists is an indication of the impact that these systems are having in the traditionally static field of construction. Hopefully, this trend is a si gn that future generations of builders and

PAGE 61

44 constructors will have fully developed models of sustainability to guide them in their practices, which is essential to our society’s prosperity. The next chapter of this th esis will detail the Methodol ogy that was utilized for the Results portion of the thesis.

PAGE 62

45 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This section of the report will utilize th e information presented in Chapter 2 in order to develop a model of comparison acro ss the different rating systems. Moreover, this chapter presents the research me thodology that was employed to compare the standards to one another, and th e various variables that were studied. The majority of the research and data collection that was conducte d for this thesis was gathered by examining residential green rating system’s builder guidelines. Therefore, this chapter presents the underpinnings of the analysis that will be pr esented in the Chapter 4, which will be used to help create a process guide for rating sy stem formation in the state of Florida. Rating Systems After conducting a careful study of the various residential rating systems that exist in this country, it was determined that 35 different programs should be included in the analysis based on their structure, implementa tion and purpose. Henc eforth, the analysis found that the rating systems could be categorized according to their intended function, elements and method of implementation. While many of the rating systems appear to be similar in nature, there are subtle differe nces that warrant ex amination. Table 3-1 provides a general list of the programs that were examined. Also, Table 3-2, which is located in the next sec tion of this chapter, provides some more detailed information about the rating systems that were looked at. Both of these tables will be further discussed in the next chapter of this report.

PAGE 63

46 Table 3-1: Rating Systems Analyzed Organization Program Name Alameda County Waste Management Authority (CA) Green Building in Alameda County American Lung Association ALA Health House Arizona Public Service APS Performance Built Homes Building Industry Association of Hawaii Hawaii BuiltGreen California Building Industry Association (CBIA) California Green Builder Program Central New Mexico CNM Building America Partner City of Arlington County, VA Arlington Green Home Choice City of Aspen, CO Aspen Efficient Building Program City of Austin/Austin Energy Austin Energy's Green Building Program City of Boulder, CO Boulder Green Points Program City of Frisco, Tx Frisco Green Building Program City of Scottsdale, AZ Sco ttsdale’s GREENBUILDING Program County of Santa Barbara, CA Innovative Building Review Program Earth Advantage Earth Advantage Florida Green Building Coalition Inc. Florida Green Home Destination Greater Atlanta HBA/Southface Energy Institute EarthCraft House HBA of Grand Traverse City, MI Grand Traverse Green Built Program HBA of Jefferson County Built Green Jefferson County HBA of Metro Denver Built Green Colorado HBA of Whatcom County Built Green Whatcom County Home & Building Association of Grand Rapids, Michigan Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. Kitsap County HBA Build Green Kitsap County Masco Contractor Services Environments for Living Master Builders Association of King/Snohomish Counti es Built Green Program of King/Snohomish Counties Master Builders Association of Olympia Built Green Olympia Master Builders Association of Pierce County Built Green Pierce County Memphis Light, Gas & Power Shelby EcoBuild Program Metropolitan Partnership for Energy/Greater San Antonio Builders Association Build San Antonio Green National Association of Homebuilders NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines North Carolina Solar Center/State Energy Office, NC Dept. of Administration North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Tucson Electric Power TEP Guarantee Home Program US Green Building Council LEED for Homes Vermont Energy Investment Corp. Vermont Builds Greener Program Western North Carolina Green Building Council W estern North Caroline Healthy Built Homes Wisconsin Environmental Initiative Wisconsin Green Built Home

PAGE 64

47 As indicated in Table 3-1, 35 program s were reviewed for this study. Unfortunately, some of the programs that exist around the country have been either inadvertently or purposely left out of this st udy due to a lack of information available on them. Most of the programs that have been purposely left out of this study are energyfocused and did not provide enough informati on for inclusion. Furthermore, every attempt was made to include all programs that are based multiple environmental categories, but there is the potential that a few existing programs do not appear in this study. Additionally, certain progr ams that do not fit the into this study’s focus pattern have also been left out, such as the E nvironmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star Program, but these will be mentioned in the next chapter because of their significance. Rating System Analysis The analysis of the 35 rating systems was conducted in order to discover the commonalities or differences that exist betw een them. One of the primary differences that was discovered was that there are three ma in ways in which a residential green rating system can be classified: prescriptive programs that have an energy guarantee, prescriptive programs that have a sustainability focus, a nd points-based programs that have a sustainability focus. Additionally, there are six different ways in which an organization with administrative authority ov er the programs can be classified, which include: national organizations, home building as sociations, local municipalities, utility companies, non-profit organizations, and al liances, which are defined as being a combination between two or more authority types. Table 3-2 pr ovides a summary of these various relationships that exist between the rating systems. The term “sustainability focus” designates those programs that contai n multiple environmental categories in their builder guidelines.

PAGE 65

48 Table 3-2: Rating System Classification Matrix Prescriptive Program Points Based Program Authority Energy Guarantee Sustainability FocusSustainability Focus Nationwide Organization/Scope Environments for Living ALA Health House NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines LEED for Homes Home Builders Association California Green Builder Program Hawaii BuiltGreen Grand Traverse Green Built Program Built Green Jefferson County Built Green Colorado Built Green Whatcom County Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc.. Build Green Kitsap County Built Green Program of King/Snohomish Counties Built Green Olympia Built Green Pierce County Local Municipality Frisco Green Building Program Green Building in Alameda County Arlington Green Home Choice Aspen Efficient Building Program Boulder Green Points Program Scottsdale’s GREENBUILDING Program Innovative Building Review Program Utility Company APS Performance Built Homes TEP Guarantee Home Program EcoBuild Program Austin Energy's Green Building Program Non-Profit Organization Earth Advantage Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes Alliances (Combination) CNM Building America Partner Build San Antonio Green Florida Green Home Destination EarthCraft House North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Vermont Builds Greener Program Wisconsin Green Built Home As Table 3-2 indicates, the majority of the programs (27) are points-based systems that focus on a multitude of environmental issues, while five of the programs are

PAGE 66

49 prescriptive in nature that also focus on a multitude of environmental issues, and the remaining three are prescriptive programs that offer their users an energy usage guarantee. However, the 35 rating systems we re also analyzed across numerous other variables in order to have a comparative basi s for the Results chapter of this thesis. These variables provided insight into some of the successful ways to construct a rating system. The following sections of this ch apter will introduce the variables that were examined, and Chapter 4 will discuss the major findings. Core Characteristics Some of the primary data that was collected on each rating system was their “core characteristics”. More specifi cally, data was obtained from e ach rating system regarding: the year it was established; the type of or ganization that administers the program; the verification procedures for certif ication; the incentives that are offered to builders to use their program; the type of membership in th e program (voluntary vs. mandatory); the fees that are charged to builder s to use the program; and op tional or mandatory program elements, such as qualification as an Energy Star New Home. These characteristics were obtained via personal communication with each of the 35 rating systems and by examining their builder guidelines. This data set was analyzed based the fre quency of each charact eristic, with respect to the number of participating rating systems. The results represent a starting point for rating system comparison because of the ge neralities they present. More detailed information on each system’s core characteri stics can be found in the appendices that accompany this study, and Chapter 4 will pr esent some of the summary findings.

PAGE 67

50 Sustainability Stratification Another primary way that th e rating systems were compared to one another was by analyzing the relative weights th e programs assign to the five main levels environmental concerns. This was conducted based on their points systems, line items, minimum points requirements and mandatory line item requirements. The five levels of sustainability that were examined were: energy efficiency, ma terial efficiency, indoor environmental quality, water efficiency and site planni ng. Additionally, because many programs had other common requirements, data was stra tified according to homeowner education, innovation opportunities, builder operations and other various unique categories, such as disaster mitigation. By assembling the data based on these normalized categories, it became possible to determine the overall average weights that are placed upon the various categories across the nation. Table 3-3 lists the categorie s that were used throughout the comparison for this study. Additi onally, the original categories for each rating system, before normalization, can be f ound in the appendices that accompany this study. Table 3-3: Category Normalization Normalized Category Description 1. Bonus/Innovation This category offe rs builders the opportunity to be innovative in their approach and gain credit for items that are not specifically listed in the program 2. Builder Operations This category gi ves credit for certain practices that promulgate green building awareness and expertise, such as training their subcontractors in the program 3. Energy Efficiency This category offers credit for energy efficient green building methods, means or materials

PAGE 68

51 Table 3-3. Continued Normalized Category Description 4. Homeowner Education Credit is earned in this category for educating the homebuyer about their green home and its features, such as providing a “green” home manual 5. Indoor Environmental Quality This cate gory gives credit for construction means, methods or materials that improve the indoor environmental quality for the home, both during and after construction 6. Preexisting Standards/Codes This categor y is concerned with the builder meeting or exceeding certain state or local construction standards, many of which go beyond the minimum building codes in the area 7. Resource/Material Efficiency Credit is offered in this category for construction means, methods or materials that aid in resource or material efficiencies, such as recycling or using engineered wood products 8. Site Planning This category offers credit for construction activities that lessen the site impacts of the development or the home, such as BMPs for stormwater remediation 9. Water Efficiency This category o ffers credit for construction means, methods or materials that increase a home’s water use efficiency, both during and after construction 10. Unique Items This category offers credit for those items that cannot be classified in any of the other nine areas. As previously stated, these categorie s were developed for the sole purpose comparing the rating systems across common elements. Most of the green programs have categories that are excl usively concerned with one of the ten normalized sections listed in Table 3-3. However, a few of the rating systems have categories that can be considered hybrids, simply because thei r line items fall under tw o or more of the normalized categories. Therefore, in these cases, hybrid category line items were split up and placed into their appropriate normali zed category, which was accounted for in the analysis that in Chapter 4. Unfortunately, three of the programs that were analyzed for this study could not have their categories normalized, because they were “ultra hybrids”. This means that

PAGE 69

52 their category structure did not follow the t ypical environmental stratification that the other 32 programs followed. While these prog rams were not analy zed according to the normalized category structure, they are incl uded in the aggregate total numbers, which will be seen in later sections. Geographic Stratification Based upon the sustainability stratification procedure, the rating systems were also analyzed according to their ge ographic location. This was done in order to determine if there were any important differences in the rating systems based on their location. The regions were broken up into contiguous ar eas of the country with generally accepted geographic boundaries. While, these regions do not specifically address climate differences across the country, th ey still provide insight into some of the regional trends. Table 3-4 shows a list of the nine main regi ons across the country, th eir respective states, and the number of analyzed programs that exist within each state. Table 3-4: Geographic Regionalization Geographic Region States Within the Region (# of Programs) Number of Programs Nationwide All 50 States(4) 4 New England Connecticut(0), Maine(0), Massachusetts(0), New Hampshire(0), Rhode Island(0), Vermont(1) 1 Mid-Atlantic Delaware(0), District of Columbia(0), Maryland(0), New Jersey(0), New York(0), Pennsylvania(0) 0 Southeastern Alabama(0), Fl orida(1), Georgia(1), North Carolina(2), South Carolina(0), Virginia(1), West Virginia(0) 5 Southern Arkansas(0), Kentucky(0), Louisiana(0), Mississippi(0), Oklahoma(0), Tennessee(1), Texas(3) 4 Midwest Illinois(0), Iowa(0), Indiana(0), Kansas(0), Michigan(2), Minnesota(0), Missouri(0), Nebraska(0), North Dakota(0), Ohio(0), South Dakota(0), Wisconsin(1) 3

PAGE 70

53 Table 3-4. Continued Geographic Region States Within the Region (# of Programs) Number of Programs Southwestern Arizona(3), California(3), Colorado(3), Nevada(0), New Mexico(1), Utah(0) 10 Pacific Northwest Idaho(0), Oregon(1), Montana(0), Washington(6), Wyoming(0) 7 Pacific Alaska (0), Hawaii (1) 1 According to Table 3-4, the Western states currently encompass 17 of the 35 programs (49%) that were analyzed. Additiona lly, the Northeastern states only have one program in total if the nati onal programs are disregarded. Therefore, some of the geographic analysis will not cont ain a large amount of inform ation on some of the colder climate states. For additional information, Table 3-5 provides a mo re detailed breakdown of the geographic regions by listi ng the rating systems that exist in each of them. This information will be analyzed more specifically in the next chapter of this report. Table 3-5: Rating Systems W ithin Each Geographic Region Geographic Region Programs Within Each Region Total Number of Programs Nationwide ALA Health House; Environments for Living; LEED for Homes; NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines 4 New England Vermont Builds Greener Program 1 Mid-Atlantic 0 Southeastern Florida Green Ho me Designation; EarthCraft House; North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes; Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes; Arlington Green Home Choice Program 5 Southern EcoBuild Program; Austin Energy’s Green Building Program; Frisco Green Building Program; Build San Antonio Green 4 Midwest Grand Traverse Green Built Program; Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc.; Wisconsin Green Built Home 3

PAGE 71

54 Table 3-5. Continued Geographic Region Programs Within Each Region Total Number of Programs Southwestern Aspen Efficient Building Program; Boulder Green Points Program; Built Green Colorado; Innovative Building Revi ew Program; California Green Builder Program; Green Building in Alameda County; CNM Building America Partner; APS Performance Built Homes; TEP Guarantee Home Program; Scottsdale’s GREENBUILDING Program 10 Pacific Northwest Earth Advantag e; Built Green Jefferson County; Built Green King/Snohomish Counties; Built Green Kitsap County; Built Green Olympia; Built Green Pierce County; Built Green Whatcom County 7 Pacific Hawaii BuiltGreen 1 Five Variable Sets Building upon the core characteristics, su stainability stratification, and geographic stratification, the next step in the data analysis involved analyzing the rating systems based on five different variable sets. These sets of data came directly from the rating standard checklists and point systems that are available to guide a homebuilder in the construction of a certified home. The first variable that was analyzed was the total number of points possible offered in each sec tion of the rating standard, if applicable. Second, the number of unique, mutually excl usive line items within each section was quantified for examination. Third, the num ber of minimum points required of each section was analyzed, if the ra ting system had such a requirement. Fourth, the number of mandatory line items in each section was analyzed, if the rating system had such a requirement. Finally, the fift h variable that was ascertained was the number of points required to achieve certification, depending on whether or not rating standard used a points-based system or had multiple levels of certification. These variables were

PAGE 72

55 examined in order to determine the relative we ight of a rating sect ion, the relative weight of a certified home versus the number of point s possible, and also to have a basis for comparison against one another. In order to have a consistent basis for co mparison, the first four variable sets were normalized according to the sustainability ca tegories described above. Additionally, the number of total points possible, line items, a nd points required to gain certification were stratified by their geogr aphic location, so that comparisons could be made in terms of regional sensitivity. Unfortunately, it was not possible to regionalize the data for mandatory line items and minimum points re quired in a section, si mply because there was not enough variables in these areas to make a meaningful comparison. Since the 35 rating systems had vastly different quantities for each of the five variable sets, the data was analyzed base d upon ratios instead of raw numbers. The methodology for comparing the point and line item data was to compare each normalized category total to the entire guideline’s total, in order to come up with a representative percentage. Additionally, the minimum point s and mandatory line items variable sets were compared across two separate ratios. Th e first ratio compared the frequency of each variable in the normalized categories to the individual category totals. The second ratio compared the frequency of each variable in the normalized category to the entire guideline’s total. For example, if a guidel ine offered a grand total of 100 points, and the Energy Efficiency category contained 10 points, then 10% of the to tal points would be offered by the Energy Efficiency category. Li kewise, if the minimum points that are required in the Energy Efficiency category were 5, then the first ratio would show that a minimum of 50% of the Energy Efficiency poin ts must be attained. Also, the second

PAGE 73

56 ratio would show that the En ergy Efficiency minimum points account for 5% of the total points possible. Number of Certified Homes In addition to the five variable sets, anot her piece of information that was gathered from each rating system was the number of cer tified homes that a program has completed over its history. While not every program ha s kept records of this information, the majority of the rating systems administrators were able to supply this statistic. These numbers were collected in order to assemble the aggregate total number of homes that have been certified by the 35 programs, sh ow the number of homes that have been certified each year since 1992, and to also provide some insight into the success they have had in their various geographic regions. This information will also be used in the final section of Chapter 4 that will come up with a model of rating system success. Statistical Analysis Limitation The analysis in the following chapter is based upon the framework that was introduced in this section. However, it should be noted that the stat istical analysis that was performed are based largely on averag es, medians and standard deviations. Therefore, this study did not utilize some of th e more sophisticated statistical models that take confidence intervals, coefficients of variation, T/Z/Chi-Square d values, etc, into account. The primary reason for this decision was based upon the data that was available at the time of the analysis. Also, the information that was collected from the builder guidelines was based on a visual inspection and analysis. The procedure followed was to create a database for each rating system by counting the respective vari ables. Although each rating system was carefully analyzed, there is the potential that some of the cumulative point totals, line

PAGE 74

57 items, minimum points or mandatory items may di ffer slightly from their actual or true values. This is possible simply because there could be a situation where the rating system administrators may decide not to honor a ce rtain combination of line items, such as giving credit to a home that uses two differe nt kinds of wall systems (i.e.: combining structural insulated panels with insulated concrete formwork, both of which may offer independent credit to a home). Nonetheless, every attempt was made to eliminate those line items from the cumulative totals that may not be combinable. For example, a rating system may offer 4 points for a gas water heater and 10 points for a solar water heater. In this case, only one line item would be counted and the larger point value would contribute to the total points possible. The database items that were utilized for the remainder of this thesis can be found in the appendices that accompany this study. Rating System Creation Procedure The final section in the Results chapter wi ll discuss the procedure to create a new rating system, with an emphasis on the Florida market. This section will rely directly on the models that were presented in this Chapter and their corresponding results. In addition to the environmental issues that ar e of primary concern, this section will also look at the administrative n eeds for a new program. The chief purpose for this analysis is to come up with a solution to a potential conflict that exists within Flor ida. This issue hinges upon the fact that there are currently three rating system that a builder could choos e from in the state: the USGBC’s LEED for Homes program, the NAHB’s Model Green Ho mebuilding Guidelines and the Florida Green Building Coalition’s Green Home Desi gnation. Therefore, the purpose of this section will be one that is based on consolida tion, conflict resolution, and to the need for a comprehensive standard around the state. Fi nally, a tertiary purpos e for the procedural

PAGE 75

58 model that will be developed is to serve as a guide for other locations that may have similar needs. The next chapter of this report will present the re sults that this study has discovered, which is contingent upon all of th e information that has been presented thus far.

PAGE 76

59 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The previous chapters of this report se rved to introduce residential green rating systems and the various issues that remain prevalent in their implementation and use. This chapter will analyze 35 different rating systems that exist around the country across numerous variables, in order to determine thei r overall similarities or differences. This information will be utilized throughout the fi nal section of this chapter, because it provides clues on some of the most successful and effective ways to create a rating system. Residential Green Rating System General Analysis This portion of the thesis will provide a comprehensive analysis of the 35 rating systems that were studied for this report. As stated in previous chapters, this analysis will only look at the programs based upon their structure, instead of trying to analyze their environmental effectiveness. The results from the data analysis will be summarized, which will include information about their pr ogram type, core characteristics and some geographic stratification. Additionally, the next major sectio n of this thesis will look in detail at the builder guidelines that each program has written. Types of Rating Systems Analyzed After analyzing the 35 residential green ra ting systems, there were three distinct types of programs that emerged. The firs t type of program was one that relied on a pointsbased “checklist” in order to certify a home as being green. These programs offer the homebuilder a list of green options to c hoose from during construction. Out of the 35

PAGE 77

60 programs, 27 that were analyzed had a point s-based structure. The second type of program that was analyzed had a prescriptive na ture to their green home certification. In essence, these programs specifically list the items that need to be co mpleted in order to have a home that is built to their standards. Of the 35 programs, five were prescriptive in their certification procedure. The final type of program in the analysis offers their homeowner an energy usage guarantee for the home, which also contains prescriptive requirements for certification. These programs typically will certify that a home’s energy bill will not exceed a certain dollar amount for a limited number of years, based on annual kilowatt-hour usage. Three such progr ams were analyzed for this study. Table 41 provides a summary list of the types of rating programs. Table 4-1: Types of Rating Systems Type of Rating System Pro g rams Pro g rams (Cont’d) Points-based 1. Arlington Green Home Choice 15. Florida Green Home D esignatio n 2. Aspen Efficient Building P rogra m 16. Grand Traverse Green B uilt Program 3. Austin Energy’s Green B uilding Progra m 17. Grand Rapids Green B uilt, Inc. 4 Boulder Green Points P rogra m 18. Green Building in A lameda County 5. Build San Antonio Green 19. Hawaii Built Gree n 6. Built Green Colorado 20. Innovative Building R eview Progra m 7. Built Green Jefferson County 21. LEED for Homes 8. Built Green King/Snohomish Counties 22. NAHB’s Model Green H omebuilding Guideli n es 9. Built Green Kitsap County 23. North Carolina Healthy B uilt Homes Progra m 10. Built Green Olympia 24. Scottsdale’s GREENBUILDING P rogra m 11. Built Green Pierce County 25. Vermont Builds Greener P rogra m 12. Built Green Whatcom County 26. Weste r n North Carolina H ealthy Built Homes

PAGE 78

61 Table 4-1. Continued Type of Rating System Pro g rams Pro g rams (Cont’d) Points-based 13. Earth Advantage 27. Wisconsin Green Built H ome 14. EarthCraft House Prescriptive Based 1. ALA Health House 2. California Green Builder P rogra m 3. EcoBuild Progra m 4 Frisco Green Building P rogra m 5. CNM Building America P artne r Energy Cost Guarantee 1. APS Performance Built H omes 2. Environments for Living 3. TEP Guarantee Home P rogra m In addition to the certification structure, there was one other primary difference that existed between the three types of programs Specifically, three of the programs analyzed were mandatory in their municipa lities. These programs – Aspen Efficient Green Building Program, Boulder Green Points Program, and Frisco Green Building Program – require that builders submit green home documentation before a permit will be granted. While Aspen and Boulder’s programs u tilize a points-based system to allow for more flexibility, Frisco’s program uses a pr escriptive approach to guarantee that a home complies with their standard, which contains 22 mandatory items that must be completed during construction. Finally, it should be noted that two of th e most successful and popular residential programs across the country have been left out of this study the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star New Home s Program and the US Department of Energy’s Building America Program. While these programs have enjoyed enormous success over the past decade, the way in whic h they “certify” a home does not allow for a

PAGE 79

62 comparison to the other 35 programs in this study. More specifically, the Energy Star New Homes program gives builders target en ergy efficiency performance goals, which can be ensured by using a HERS rating. Al so, the Building America Program is more focused on research and testing to come up with better energy efficiency building practices. Therefore, neither of these progr ams offers a set of builder guidelines that could be meaningfully analyzed for this study. According to the Energy Star website, the New Homes program has certified over 150,000 homes since 1995. Also, according to the Building America website, this program has built over 31,000 homes in its research parks since 1995. Therefore, these two programs have cumulatively constructe d more homes than the 35 rating systems combined. However, one final important not e is that many of the 35 programs analyzed in this study do give credit for a home th at becomes a certified Energy Star New Home, which will be shown in later sections of this report. Core Characteristics While there are three differe nt types of rating systems that emerged in this study, they all had eight comparable core characte ristics: the date of founding; the type of organization that administers the program; th e verification procedures for certification; the incentives that are offered to builders to use their program; the t ype of membership in the program; the fees that ar e charged to builders to use the program; and optional or mandatory program elements. These core char acteristics represent the starting point for their comparison, because they indicate the general manner in which a rating system was intended to function.

PAGE 80

63 Date of founding All of the 35 rating systems that were looked at began between the years 1991 and 2005. Austin Energy’s Green Building Program was the pioneer in th e field; it set the tone for the next 15 years of rating standa rd development. Many programs (24 of 35) have started up in the past five years, ma inly because of the su ccess that the earlier programs have enjoyed. Rating system mark et acceptance is burgeoning, which can be directly illustrated by the number of programs that have been created in recent years. Figure 4-1 displays the number of programs that have been started since Austin’s commencement. Figure 4-1: Rating Sy stem Start Up Year Type of organization As previously mentioned, there are six main types of organizations that administer the 35 rating systems: Nationwide Organizati ons, Home Builders Associations (HBA), Local Utility Companies, Local Governmen t/Municipalities, NonProfit Organizations, Number of Programs Started by Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 19911993199519971998199920002001200320042005

PAGE 81

64 and Alliances (combination of two or more types). Please refer to Table 4-2 for the organizational classification of each rating system. The type of organization that a rating sta ndard is administered by has a large impact on the way that a program is written, and its intended function. For example, all ten of the HBA programs are points-based systems, while many of the prescriptive programs are either local utilities or local governmen ts. Furthermore, many of the programs that have the ability to offer monetary or pr ocedural incentives are local utilities or government based, because they have the wherewithal to do so. Also, the organizational type has implications on the fiscal abilities of a rating system’s administration, which is why many of the utility or government program s do not charge the builders any fees to use participate. On the other hand, HBA admini stered programs have a need to generate revenue off of their certified green homes, so they often will charge a series of fees to the builder. The fiscal and budgetary concerns for a rating system will be an important factor in the final section of this chapter, as will all of the other core characteristics that are presented in this section. Figure 4-2 show s a graphic representation of the different organizational types, and each of the rating sy stem’s individual type can be found in the appendices that accompany this study. As th e figure illustrates, the majority of the programs that have been analyzed belong to e ither a HBA or an alliance. The smallest numbers of programs are administered by non-profits, utilities and nationwide organizations. One of the primary reasons why there are not more nationwide programs is because of the gambit of locally sensitive issues, which therefore makes it very difficult to administer a nationwide standard.

PAGE 82

65 Figure 4-2: Organizational Type Verification procedures Another core characteristic gathered was the way in which the administrative body for the rating system verifies that a builder has actually constructed a home that follows their specifications. It was discovered that there were three main methods of verification that exist amongst the 35 progr ams: builder self-certification (sworn affidavits of compliance), inspections by the rating system administrators, and third party testing for envelope tightness, energy usage, etc. Additionally, many of the programs use a combination of the three different methods. More specifically, the rating systems that have multiple levels of certification, such as one to five “stars”, will typically require more rigorous verification procedures for the homes that seek a higher rating level. The verification procedures for the 35 programs ar e displayed in Figure 4-3, and each rating system’s individual method can be found in the appendices. Organizational Type 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Home Builders Association Alliance Local Government NationwideLocal Utility Company Non-Profit OrganizationNumber of Programs

PAGE 83

66 Figure 4-3: Verificat ion Procedures As Figure 4-3 indicates 12 programs employ third party testing as their only means of verification. Inspection is the se cond most popular method, followed by selfcertification. Finally, only six of the 35 programs have chosen to employ a combination of the three methods. Builder incentives The fourth core characteristic involved th e incentives that programs offer builders who utilize their systems. Generally speak ing, incentives can either be monetary, procedural or energy guarantees: monetary in centives are typically energy rebates offered by utility companies; procedural incentives are usually expedited permitting offered by local governments; and energy guarantee in centives guarantee a maximum monthly energy cost, which are offered by three of the programs in this study. It should be noted that most of the programs offer non-moneta ry or non-procedural incentives to the Verification Procedures 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 3rd Party Testing InspectionsSelf CertificationTesting & Inspection Testing & Self Certification Inspection & Self CertificationNumber of Programs

PAGE 84

67 builders, such as program signage, educati on and marketing. Ho wever, because these incentives are largely intangible, they were not quantified for this analysis. One interesting finding was that none of the HBA programs had any specific monetary or procedural incentives that they could offer the builders, although most of them expressed that they would benefit from having the abil ity to do so. In fact, 25 of the 35 programs analyzed do not have any specific means for offering builder incentives, which will be shown to be a paramount issue in the final se ction of this chapter. Figure 4-4 shows a breakdown of the incentives that are offere d by the programs, and each rating system’s individual incentive can be found in the appendices. Figure 4-4: Incentives to Builders Membership type Another core characteristic was the type of membership that a rating system utilizes. This feature can either be vol untary or mandatory, and all three mandatory Incentives Offered to Builders 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Monetary IncentivesProcedural Incentives Permitting Guaranteed Energy CostNone of the ThreeNumber of Programs

PAGE 85

68 programs in this study are administered by a local government or municipality. A general consensus that was discussed in Chapter 2 is that many builders oppose a mandatory green program, but ther e are distinct benefits that can be realized from such a structure. One primary benefit is that an en tire housing stock in a certain market is built to green specifications, which c ontributes greatly to the goals of sustainability. However, a common criticism of mandatory programs is th at they often scale down the difficulty of their green specifications to minimize resist ance from the industry. However, this analysis did not find that to be the case, given that the mandatory programs had similar requirements to the voluntar y programs. The breakdown of membership type can be found in Figure 4-5, and each individual system ’s type can be found in the appendices. Type of Builder Membership 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 VoluntaryMandatoryNumber of Programs Figure 4-5: Membership Type Builder fees The sixth core characteristic that was iden tified was the fees that are charged to builders to participate in the programs. Many of the HBA programs require both an annual membership fee to belong to their green initiative and a per hom e certification fee.

PAGE 86

69 Conversely, most of the municipal and local ut ility companies do not charge any fees for participation, because they do not have th e financial needs that an HBA may have. Figure 4-6 provides a general breakdown of the fees that are charged to builders that use the residential green rating systems, and the sp ecific fees can be found in the appendices. It should be noted, however, that there wa s not a quantitative comparative analysis performed on the amounts that a program charges, simply because there is a large variation in the fees. Figure 4-6: Fees Charged to Builders Optional and mandatory program elements The final two core characteristics that were examined for this study were the optional and mandatory program elements that the builder guidelines contain for each rating system. These elements are generally e ither national or local standards that have a focus on energy or indoor air quality issues. Additionally, they are items that are usually Types of Fees Charged to Builders 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Both Annual and Per Home Fees Per Home Certification Fees Only Annual Membership Fees Only No FeesNumber of Programs

PAGE 87

70 considered more difficult unde rtakings for a builder, and they are certainly more technically specialized than a building code Figures 4-7 and 4-8 display the most common optional and required elements, respec tively. It should be noted that the cumulative totals seen in these figures add to more than 35 because many of the programs have more than one optional or required el ement. Another important fact about the required program elements is that many of th ese items are only mandated for homes that achieve a higher certification level (given that the program has multiple levels of certification). Therefore, not every home certified by a program will be forced to include all of their required elements if they seek an entry-level certific ation. However, each individual rating system’s requirements for this issue can be found in detail in the appendices. Figure 4-7: Common Optional Elements Common Optional Program Elements in Rating Standards 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Energy Star New Home ALA Health House Manual J HVAC Sizing Other Energy Star Programs Meet or Exceed Existing State Energy Standards Life Cycle Analysis None of TheseNumber of Programs

PAGE 88

71 Figure 4-8: Common Required Elements As Figure 4-7 has shown, the most popular op tional element is an Energy Star New Home certification. For the points-based pr ograms, this optional element most often earns a good deal of points in the Energy Effi ciency category. Also, Figure 4-8 indicates that eight of the 35 programs have mandated Energy Star certificat ion. Conversely, zero programs have a mandatory ALA Health Hous e certification, while eight programs offer it as an optional element. One other in teresting finding is th at only two of the 35 programs currently offer credit for a Life Cycl e Analysis. Finally, it can be seen that the majority of the optional and required elements are related to energy efficiency, which is an indication of its importance. Sustainability Stratification After collecting all of the co re characteristic data, the next stage of the analysis involved a thorough examination of the builder guidelines for each rating system, which Common Required Elements in Rating Systems 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Manual J HVAC Sizing Exceed State Energy Standards Energy Star New Home Meet or Exceed IECC Size Ductwork via Manual D Other Energy Star Programs None of TheseNumber of Programs

PAGE 89

72 was completed by building a complex series of databases that housed information a wide variety of topics. It was qui ckly discovered that the 35 different green programs have a few homogeneous goals amongst their categorie s. However, many of the programs had different titles for these categories, so it was decided to normalize the data using ten standard category titles. Table 3-3 introduced the categories and thei r general goals, and this section of the report will delve more deeply into this topic. One very important factor that this study encountered while stratifying the data was that many of the rating systems had hybrid cate gories that included pr ovisions for two or more of the normalized category names. In these cases, the points (if applicable) and line items within these categories were split up by placing them into the appropriate normalized category. Unfortunately, three pr ograms that were reviewed did not have their data sets stratified at al l, because their category structure was completely disjointed when compared to the other 32 programs. These programs were: ALA Health House, Green Building in Alameda County, and Scottsdale’s GREENBUILDING Program. Ultimately, these programs had categories that of ten contained items that could be placed in all ten normalized categories, which made it too difficult to stratify them in a meaningful and accurate way. The following subsections of this report will discuss some of the important issues that are relevant to each normalized categ ory. For additional information about the program’s category use, please refer to Tabl es 4-2 and 4-4. Also, each rating system’s original category names and subsecti ons can be found in the appendices Bonus/innovation The first category that was created included line items that offer builders the chance to be creative in their green construction practices. The only programs that contained

PAGE 90

73 such items are the points-based programs, si mply because the prescriptive programs did not allow for this type of flexibility. Ma ny of the bonus points that were available to builders were open ended, meaning that there we re not specific line items available for credit, but rather each builder could subm it their unique practices for acceptance. Eleven of the 32 programs that were stratified had provisions for bonus points allowances. Some of the common categor y names that were found in the builder guidelines are as follows: “Bonus Points ”; “Innovation Points ”; “Innovation and Additional Green Action”; “Bonus and Innovative New Measures”; etc. Builder operations The second category that was stratified ga ve credit for various types of builder operations. These operations were most co mmonly focused on encouraging the builders to promulgate the rating systems within the co nstruction industry and local market. Only six of the 32 programs that were stratified c ontained items that were concerned with this topic. Common category names for Builder Operations within the builder guidelines were: “Builder Operations”; “Built Green Team”; etc. Energy efficiency The third category, energy efficiency, is currently considered perhaps the most important and significant concern within the gr een building arena. Energy efficiency of newly constructed homes is extremely important to the sustainable future, especially with rising heating and cooling costs. In fact, most of the rati ng systems have prerequisite requirements for minimum energy efficiency performance. The items within this category are concerned with a host of variab les, some of them being: HVAC system efficiency, lighting efficiency, water heati ng efficiency, thermal load efficiency, home appliance efficiency, renewable energy source utilization, etc. All 33 of the stratified

PAGE 91

74 programs had energy efficient items within th e guidelines, and some of the original category names were: “Energy Efficiency”; “Energy Efficient Building Envelope and Systems”; “Energy Measures”; Energy Effici ent Appliances”; “HVAC”; “Energy Code Measures”; “Energy and Atmosphere”; “E fficient Building Design”; “Air Sealing”; “Appliances, Lighting, Renewables”; etc. Homeowner education/operat ion and maintenance (o&m) The fourth stratified cate gory was concerned with the builders educating their homebuyers on the home’s green features, a nd ensuring that the structure will be maintained properly. Maintenance issues are important to high performance homes, especially with respect to indoor environmen tal quality and energy efficiency. Moreover, one of the most common requirements in this category was that th e builders provide the homebuyer with a manual that thoroughly explai ns the important features of the home. Sixteen of the 33 programs had items in thei r builder guidelines that revolved around homeowner education. Some of the category names that these systems originally used were: “Homebuyer Education” ; “Promote Environmenta lly Friendly Homeowner Operations and Maintenance”; “Environment ally Friendly Home Operations”; “Keeping it Green”; etc. Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) The fifth category that was created for this analysis is concerned with the health of the home occupants. Commonly referred to as indoor air quality, this category is also of paramount importance within the green community. IEQ encompasses a broad range concerns including proper ventilation, low volatile organic compound (VOC) emitting materials and finishes, proper air flow, and ot her measures that contribute to a cleaner, healthier indoor environment. This categ ory is extremely important to green homes

PAGE 92

75 because it has the potential to improve the overall health of the homebuyers by minimizing toxic fumes and mold problems. Furthermore, these issues are becoming more important to builders because there have been many recent lawsuits centered around this topic. Following suit with Energy Effi ciency, all 33 programs have items that are concerned with IEQ. Some of the common category names used by the rating systems were: “Indoor Air Quality”; “Indoor Environmental Quality ”; “Health”; “Health and Safety”; “Promote Good Air Quality and Health”; “Occupant Health”; “Advanced Ventilation”; etc. Preexisting standards/codes The sixth category of stratification, Preex isting Standard/Codes, requires builders to follow state or local standards to increas e the overall performance of a home. Nine programs within three states have provisions for preexisting standard s, which are Texas, Washington and North Carolina. Most of th ese codes are optional statewide standards that have been written concerning energy, wate r, site planning, and other topics, with the goal of improving upon the current building c odes. Common category names for this topic include: “Codes and Re gulations”; “Build to Green Codes/Regulations”; etc. Resource/material efficiency Resource and material efficiency is anothe r category considered to be one of the more important issues in the green buildi ng arena. This cate gory is focused upon the conservation of natural resources and using materials more efficiently. Some of the common ways in which these objectives are achieved is by recycling construction waste, using recycled content materi als, using sustainably harv ested or rapidly renewable materials, using local materials, using engineered wood products or other building materials with alternative components (i.e.: flyash), etc.

PAGE 93

76 While all 33 stratified programs stipulated IEQ and energy efficiency measures, only 30 programs contained resource efficien cy items, because the three energy guarantee programs were not concerned with this topic. Some of the common category names that the 30 programs used were: “Resource Effi cient Design”; “Resource Efficient Building Materials”; “Waste Management”; “Construc tion Debris Recycling”; “Reduce/Reuse/ Recycle”; “Purchase Resource-Efficient Product s”; “Building Materials Selection”; etc. Site planning The eighth stratified category was site planning, which is concerned with land development issues. This topic is becomi ng more important in many locations, mainly because of the overarching implications th at site development can have on the ecosystems and natural habitats of indigenous species. Much of the focus of this category is upon stormwater management; othe r areas of concern ar e tree preservation, soil quality, erosion, efficien t lot design, and a few others. Twenty-six of the 33 programs that were stratified decided to in clude site design elements in their builder guidelines. Some of their chosen category names were: “Site Planning”; “Land Use”; “Lot Design, Preparation and Developmen t”; “Treat Site Appropriately”; “Soil Opportunities”; “Development Opportuni ties”; “Siting and Land Use”; “Landscape Conservation and Stormwat er Management”; etc. Water efficiency Another important category created for the ra ting system analysis has to do with indoor and outdoor water efficiency, in terms of occupant use. Wate r is an increasingly important environmental issue in many regions including Florida. The 22 rating systems that included provisions for wa ter efficiency are generally focused on installing water saving fixtures, reducing lawn irrigation, graywater reuse for non-potable functions and

PAGE 94

77 rainwater harvesting for irrigation. Some of the common category names that the rating systems used for Water Efficiency were: “Water”; “Indoor/Outdoor Water Use”; “Water Efficiency”; “Resource Conservation: Water” ; “Plumbing”; “Water Opportunities”; etc. Unique The tenth and final category that was norma lized for the rating systems was used to account for items that could not be definitively placed in any of the ot her nine categories. However, after the analysis was completed, it was discovered that Florida’s Green Home Designation was the sole system had Unique items. Specifically, this rating system contains provisions for hurricane damage m itigation, termite infestation and some other key Florida concerns. Therefore, since this category only had one participating program, it was not used in the points, line item, mandatory item or minimum points required analysis. However, it remains an important issue, especially for this study, because it highlights the important concept of creat ing a regionally sensitive rating system. Geographic Stratification Once the data was normalized into the ten sust ainability categories, the next step in the analysis process was to stratify the data into ten different ge ographic regions. This process was undertaken in order to determine if there were similarities or differences between the green rating systems, based on thei r location. Please refe r to Tables 3-4 and 3-5 in Chapter 3 for a breakdown of the states and rating systems that are located within each of the regions. As stated in Chapter 3, the majority of the programs that exist throughout the country are in the Western states. Unfort unately, between the No rtheast and the MidAtlantic regions, there is only one local rating system included in this analysis. However, the geographic stratification will still be able to provide an indica tion of regional program

PAGE 95

78 differences. Moreover, this information will be utilized for the final section of this chapter, in which a process guide will be developed for the state of Florida. The data analysis consisted of geographical ly stratifying the residential green rating systems across their points and line item struct ures, as well as the number of homes they have certified. These results will be presented in the respective subsecti ons of this report. As an introduction, Figure 4-9 displays th e representative pro portion of green rating systems that exist within each geographic region. Figure 4-9: Percentage of Programs in Each Region Residential Green Rating System Builder Guideline Analysis The next four sections of this report will analyze the residential green rating system builder guidelines in detail. Specifically, th is analysis will include information about the different programs with respect to: their points structure within each category (if applicable), their line items within each category, the minimum points required in each Percentage of Rating Systems Within Each Geographic Region 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00%N a t io nwide N e w Eng la nd Mid-A t la n t ic Sou t heastern Sou t hern Midwest Sou t hwest e rn Pacific No r thw e st Pacific

PAGE 96

79 category (if applicable), a nd their mandatory line items within each category (if applicable). In addition, the points that a program requires for home certification will be analyzed if it is based on a point structure. Finally, the number of homes that the rating systems have certified since 1991 will be discussed. The various tables and char ts that appear in the points and line item, minimum point and mandatory line item analyses will show comparative statistical data for the different programs. These tables will be based on percentages, rather than on raw numbers, simply because the different program s offer a huge range of respective totals. For example, it would not be rational to compare a rating system that offers 200 total points to a rating system that offers 1000 total points. Therefore, th e data that will be presented is based upon relati ve proportions of points, line items, minimum points required or mandatory line items; which t hus provides a level basis of comparison. Number of Points and Line Items The first stage of analysis was conducte d for the green rating system’s point structure (if applicable) and line items. Li ne items are defined as a unique criterion within a rating system’s builder guide. For instance, an Energy Efficiency section may offer a user a grand total of 100 points possi ble, which correspond to 50 separate line items within the category. In the case of a points-based system, different line items will have different point weights assigned to them which indicates that they are generally more difficult or costly items to complete. For the purposes of this study, the number of line items and points were added up for each category in the rating systems, which were then entered into a database for analysis. Ther efore, this study did not take the line item’s respective weighted poin t value into account.

PAGE 97

80 The analysis was conducted by comparing each individual ca tegory’s points and line items to the aggregate totals that are co ntained in the rating system. Therefore, a representative percentage of each category (compared to the total number of available points and line items) was developed. Also, in order to have a consistent basis of comparison, hybrid categories within a rating sy stem were properly broken up and placed into the normalized categories, as Chapter 3 stated earlier. Furthermore, any points or line items that were found to be mutually ex clusive with other point s or line items were disregarded and not counted in the totals. An example would be if one line item gave 3 points for using a gas water heater and anot her gave 5 points for using a solar powered water heater. In this case, there would be only one line item counted for these two options, and the greater point amount (5) would be configured into the point total. While every attempt was made to filter out any mutually exclusive items, the potential exists that this process was not 100% accurate. Nonethel ess, the data that is presented herein is the result of a careful and deliberate methodology. Unfortunately, three programs could not be stratified according to the ten normalized categories, and thus could not be included in this porti on of the study. These programs were: ALA Health House, Green Building in Alameda County, and Scottsdale’s GREENBUILDING Program. Please refer to the appendices to see each rating systems original point and line item structure, as well as their respective quantities. Points-based programs Excluding the rating systems mentioned earlier, 25 points-based programs were analyzed. By following the general procedur e that was described above, representative percentages for each of the sustainability ca tegories were developed. Firstly, however, it

PAGE 98

81 is important to display the rating systems that actually had provisions in their guidelines for each of the categories, which is shown in Table 4-2. Table 4-2: Twenty Five Points-based Systems That Utilized the Sustainability Categories in Their Guidelines Category Participating Points-Based Rating Systems 1. Bonus/Innovation (11 Total Programs) Arlington Green Home Choice Aspen Efficient Building Program Boulder Green Points Program Earth Advantage EarthCraft House Grand Traverse Green Built Program Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. LEED for Homes NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes 2. Builder Operations (6 Total Programs) Arlington Green Home Choice Built Green Whatcom County EarthCraft House Florida Green Home Destination Grand Traverse Green Built Program Wisconsin Green Built Home 3. Energy Efficiency All 25 Programs Stratified 4. Homeowner Education (16 Total Programs) Arlington Green Home Choice Austin Energy's Green Building Program Built Green King/Snohomish Counties Built Green Kitsap County Built Green Olympia Built Green Pierce County Built Green Whatcom County EarthCraft House Florida Green Home Destination Grand Traverse Green Built Program Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. Hawaii BuiltGreen LEED for Homes NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines Vermont Builds Greener Program Wisconsin Green Built Home 5. Indoor Environmental Quality All 25 Programs Stratified 6. Preexisting Standards/Codes (9 Total Programs) Austin Energy's Green Building Program Built Green Jefferson County Built Green King/Snohomish Counties Built Green Kitsap County Built Green Olympia Built Green Pierce County Built Green Whatcom County North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes 7. Resource/Material Efficien cy All 25 Programs Stratified 8. Site Planning (24 Total Programs) All programs EXCEPT Innovative Building Review Program

PAGE 99

82 Table 4-2. Continued Category Participating Points-Based Rating Systems 9. Water Efficiency (19 Total Programs) Arlington Green Home Choice Aspen Efficient Building Program Austin Energy's Green Building Program Boulder Green Points Program Build San Antonio Green Built Green Colorado Built Green Jefferson County Built Green Pierce County Built Green Whatcom County Earth Advantage EarthCraft House Florida Green Home Destination Grand Traverse Green Built Program Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. LEED for Homes NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes Wisconsin Green Built Home 10. Unique Items (1 Program) Florida Green Home Designation Therefore, according to Table 4-2, th e most utilized categories are Energy Efficiency, Indoor Environmental Quality a nd Resource/Material Efficiency, which are followed closely by Site Planning and Water Efficiency. The next procedure in the analysis was to determine the relative weights of points/line items in each category, with respect to the total number of points/line items in the entire builder guideline. Table 4-3 displays the normalized category statistical da ta for the programs that used each one. Also, Figure 4-10 shows the corresponding av erage percentages for each normalized category. Table 4-3: Percentage of Points and Line It ems in Each Category, for the 25 Points-Based Programs Points-Based: Representative Percentage of Total Points Possible in Each Category Category MeanMedianStd. Dev.RangeMin. Max.Count Bonus/Innovation 4.8%3.9%4.1%11.5%0.4% 11.9%11 Builder Operations 3.1%1.6%3.4%9.0%0.6% 9.7%6 Energy Efficiency 36.4%35.7%12.0%41.9%19.3% 61.3%25 Homeowner Education/O&M 3.5%1.5%5.4%17.3%0.0% 17.3%16 Indoor Environmental Quality 14.5%14.6%4.2%17.5%6.3% 23.9%25 Preexisting Standards/Codes 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% 0.0%9 Resource/Material Efficiency 26.1%24.4%11.0%52.5%2.1% 54.6%25 Site Planning 12.0%10.4%8.3%38.4%1.4% 39.8%24 Water Efficiency 8.0%8.3%3.9%15.2%1.5% 16.6%19

PAGE 100

83 Table 4-3. Continued Points-Based: Representative Percentage of Total Line Items in Each Category Category MeanMedianStd. Dev.RangeMin. Max.Count Bonus/Innovation 2.8%3.2%1.6%4.3%0.5% 4.8%11 Builder Operations 2.9%2.0%3.5%9.4%0.4% 9.8%6 Energy Efficiency 29.5%29.7%10.3%35.8%11.4% 47.2%25 Homeowner Education/O&M 4.9%2.1%6.3%17.0%0.4% 17.4%16 Indoor Environmental Quality 17.5%17.3%4.5%19.4%8.7% 28.1%25 Preexisting Standards/Codes 2.1%2.2%0.9%2.6%0.7% 3.3%9 Resource/Material Efficiency 28.5%28.7%8.3%37.8%10.9% 48.7%25 Site Planning 11.5%11.7%6.4%21.4%1.4% 22.8%24 Water Efficiency 8.3%8.5%4.2%16.2%1.9% 18.1%19 Therefore, according to Tabl e 4-3 and Figure 4-10, it is evident that the points and line items that are associated with each category follow th e same general proportions. This fact indicates that on average the pr ograms have assigned equal weights of points and line items to each category. Some of the slight variations in numbers can generally be attributed to mandatory line items. For example, no points are assigned to the Preexisting Standards/Codes category because they are required items. This issue will be discussed more fully in one of the following sections. Also, it has become obvious that the rati ng systems assign the most points and line items to the Energy Efficiency category, on average. According to Figure 4-10, the average percentage of total points that is co ntained within the Energy Efficiency category is approximately 36%, while the average per centage of total line items is approximately 29%. The next largest category is Resource /Material Efficiency, which is followed by Indoor Environmental Quality. Site Planning an d Water Efficiency have similar weights, and the remaining four categories are deemed th e least important in terms of their average weights. Another important finding stems directly from Table 4-3. This table shows that there is a wide range of varia tion within most of the categories. This discovery supports

PAGE 101

84 Figure 4-10: Average Percentage of Total Po ints and Total Line Items By Category for the 25 Points-Based Programs one of the arguments that was presented in Ch apter 2, which stated that there is a large amount of disagreement about the “best” wa y to create an environmentally friendly Average Percentage of Total Points Possible by Category Points Based Programs 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00%Bonus/Innovati on Builder Operations Ener gy Effic i ency H omeow ner E d uc ati on /O &M Indoor Environment a l Qualit y Pr eex is ti ng Standa r ds /C odes R es our c e /Mater i al Effi c ienc y S ite Pl a nnin g W ate r Effi c ienc y Average Percentage of Total Line Items by Category Points Based Programs 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00%Bon u s/Innova t io n Builder Operations Ene r gy E ffi c ie n cy H o meo w n e r Education / O&M Indo o r Enviro n men t al Qualit y Pre e x is ting St a ndards/Co d es R e s o ur c e / Ma t e r ial Effic ie ncy Sit e Pla n ning W a t e r Ef f iciency

PAGE 102

85 home. There are many issues and variables th at are not yet fully understood with respect to their effects on natural systems, which is why many of the programs have different theories about the most effective way to produce a green home. Therefore, one of the primary conclusions that can be drawn from th is statistical analysis is the importance of achieving the appropriate balanc e between categories. Unfortunately, the balance beam has not yet been definitively calibrated, which is precisely why there is a large amount of variation between programs. For that reas on, one of the recommendations for future research that is presented in Chapter 5 sugge sts that data needs to be collected on the environmental effectiveness of the rating systems. A final way the point and line item data wa s analyzed was according to geographic region. Figures 4-11 and 4-12 display the results of this analysis. For the purposes of simplicity, only the average percentages are sh own in the figures, rather than including tables on the statistical data. However, it should be known that the statistical tables for regional analysis provided similar amounts of variation within the categories. By and large, the average percentages fo r points possible and line items between regions followed the trend that was seen in Figure 4-10, in that they have the same approximate proportions (or wei ghts) assigned to them. Al so, the regionally stratified figures also support the earli er conclusion that Energy E fficiency, Resource/Material Efficiency and IEQ are the most heavily weight ed categories. However, the regional data shows that there are some noteworthy differe nces between the six major areas. One of the most striking findings is that the Nationw ide and Pacific programs have much less of an emphasis on Energy Efficiency. However, th ere were only three programs that were analyzed between these two regions, which ma y be a contributing f actor to the lower

PAGE 103

86 Average Percentage of Total Points Possible by Category and Region: Points Based Programs0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00%Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Bonus / Innovation Builder Operations Energy Efficiency Homeowner Education / O&M Indoor Environmental Quality Preexisting Standards / Codes Resource / Material Efficiency Site PlanningWater Efficiency Figure 4-11: Average Percentage of Tota l Points Possible by Category and Region for the 25 Points-Based Programs numbers. Also with respect to Energy Effi ciency, the programs in the Southeastern and Southwestern regions assign nearly 50% of th eir total points in the Energy Efficiency category, on average. The data also show s that the Southern region has the largest proportion of points in Site Planning, whereas the Pacific region has the largest emphasis on Resource/Material Efficiency. Furthermore, the Nationwide programs tend to have more evenly distributed average numbers across the Energy Efficienc y, IEQ, Resource/Material Efficiency and Site Planning categories when compared to the other regions. Therefore, an argument may be made that the National programs atte mpt to provide a balance for their users, which makes it possible for a builder to tailor the program to local issues and needs of

PAGE 104

87 Average Percentage of Total Line Items by Category and Region: Points Based Programs0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00%Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Midwest Nationwide Pacific Southeastern Southern Southwestern Bonus / Innovation Builder Operations Energy Efficiency Homeowner Education / O&M Indoor Environmental Quality Preexisting Standards / Codes Resource / Material Efficiency Site PlanningWater Efficiency Figure 4-12: Average Percentage of Total Line Items by Category and Region for the 25 Points-Based Programs their region. The regional data helps to indicate that the different regions place a different significance on the normalized categories. Fo r example, since the Pacific region has placed a large emphasis on Resource/Materia l Efficiency, a conclusion may be drawn that the state of Hawaii has a need to mini mize resource use because of the logistical complexities regarding construction material procurement or costs. Therefore, this information is important because it provides a signal regarding what the most important environmental concerns may be in the six regions. The next subsection of this report will discuss the point and line item data for the prescriptive programs.

PAGE 105

88 Prescriptive programs In contrast with the points-bases systems, the analysis of the prescriptive rating systems solely involved a line item analysis, si nce they do not offer a point structure to their users. After analysis, it was determined that the four stratified prescriptive programs had line items for Energy Efficienc y, Indoor Air Quality and Resource/Material Efficiency. For the Site Planning categor y, only EcoBuild and CNM Building America Partner programs included line items. Also, for the Water Efficiency category, the CNM Building America Partner program was the only one that did not cont ain any line items. Finally not a single prescriptive program had any line items included for the following categories: Bonus/Innovation, Builder Oper ations, Homeowner Education/O&M or Preexisting Standards/Codes. This informa tion can be found in Table 4-4, while Table 45 displays the resulting sta tistical analysis. Also, Figur e 4-13 shows the corresponding averages for the prescriptive program’s line items. Table 4-4: Four Prescriptive Programs Utilizing Sustainability Categories Category Participating Prescriptive Rating Systems 1. Bonus/Innovation None 2. Builder Operations None 3. Energy Efficiency California Green Builder Program CNM Building America Partner EcoBuild Program Frisco Green Building Program 4. Homeowner Education None 5. Indoor Environmental Quality California Green Builder Program CNM Building America Partner EcoBuild Program Frisco Green Building Program 6. Preexisting Standards/Codes None 7. Resource/Material Efficiency California Green Builder Program CNM Building America Partner EcoBuild Program Frisco Green Building Program 8. Site Planning CNM Building Am erica Partner EcoBuild Program 9. Water Efficiency California Green Builder Program EcoBuild Program Frisco Green Building Program 10. Unique Items None

PAGE 106

89 Table 4-5: Percentage of Total Line Items in Each Ca tegory: Four Prescriptive Programs Prescriptive Programs Line Items as a Percentage of Total Line Items Category MeanMedianStd. Dev.Range Min. Max.Count Energy Efficiency 33.7%35.5%24.3%54.5% 4.5% 59.1%4 Indoor Environmental Quality 33.4%33.9%15.7%34.1% 15.9% 50.0%4 Resource/Material Efficiency 17.2%18.5%8.3%18.2% 6.8% 25.0%4 Site Planning 9.3%9.3%9.3%13.1% 2.8% 15.9%2 Water Efficiency 14.7%19.0%10.9%20.5% 2.3% 22.7%3 Bonus/Innovation N o Programs Require Minimum Points in This Categor y 0 Builder Operations N o Programs Require Minimum Points in This Categor y 0 Homeowner Education/O&M N o Programs Require Minimum Points in This Categor y 0 Preexisting Standards/Codes N o Programs Require Minimum Points in This Categor y 0 The prescriptive program analysis both mi rrors and diverges from the points-based program analysis. As with the points-based programs, there is a wi de variation in each category between the programs, which is shown in Table 4-5. Therefore, this indicates that there is somewhat of a disagreement between the prescriptive programs as to where the proper category emphasis should be. Additionally, the prescriptive programs also have placed the largest emphasis on the fi ve categories shown in Figure 4-13, simply because none of the programs contain items for the other categories. However, the prescriptive programs do not unilaterally agr ee with the points-based programs on their relative category weighting. Fo r example, there is an almost an equal average weight placed upon Energy Efficiency and IEQ, which cer tainly was not the case in the previous subsection. Therefore, a conclusion that can be drawn about the prescriptive programs is that they consider occupant health to be as chiefly important as Energy Efficiency. However, some of the average data is skewed because Frisco’s program only has one line item in it for Energy Efficiency, which stipulat es that a home must qualify as an Energy Star New Home. Also, Frisco’s program cont ributes 50% of its line items to IEQ, which has also skewed the data. Therefore, Fi gure 4-14 displays the averages for the

PAGE 107

90 Figure 4-13: Average Percentage of Total Li ne Items by Category: Four Prescriptive Programs Figure 4-14: Average Percentage of Total Line Items by Category – Three Prescriptive Programs (w/o Frisco) Average Percentage of Total Line Items by Category Prescriptive Programs 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% Energy EfficiencyIndoor Environmental Quality Resource/Material Efficiency Site PlanningWater Efficiency Average Percentage of Total Line Items by Category Prescriptive Programs (w/o Frisco) 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% Energy EfficiencyIndoor Environmental Quality Resource/Material Efficiency Site PlanningWater Efficiency

PAGE 108

91 prescriptive programs excludi ng Frisco’s program. Consequently, after adjusting the data, Fi gure 4-14 displays similar results to the points-based programs, at least in terms of the weights of Energy Efficiency and IEQ. The next section of this repor t will look at the line item structure for the energy guarantee programs. Energy guarantee programs As with the prescriptive systems, the energy guarantee programs do not offer points to their users. Therefore, this analysis was conducted only for the number of line items that each of their categorie s contained. However, these three programs are remarkably different from the other two types because they only have provisions in them for Energy Efficiency and Indoor Air Quality. The stat istical analysis for the energy guarantee programs are displayed in Table 4-6 and the resu lting averages is shown in Figure 4-15. Table 4-6: Percentage of Line Items in Each Category: Three Energy Guarantee Programs Energy Guarantee Programs Category Line It ems as a Percentage of Total Line Items Category MeanMedianStd. Dev.Range Min.Max.Count Energy Efficiency 80.2%73.1%12.4%21.5% 73.1%94.6%3 Indoor Environmental Quality 19.8%26.9%12.4%21.5% 5.4%26.9%3 Resource/Material Efficiency N o Programs Require Minimum Points in This Categor y 0 Site Planning N o Programs Require Minimum Points in This Categor y 0 Water Efficiency N o Programs Require Minimum Points in This Categor y 0 Bonus/Innovation N o Programs Require Minimum Points in This Categor y 0 Builder Operations N o Programs Require Minimum Points in This Category0 Homeowner Education/O&M N o Programs Require Minimum Points in This Categor y 0 Preexisting Standards/Codes N o Programs Require Minimum Points in This Categor y 0 As compared to the other two types of programs, the energy guarantee programs obviously place the largest emphasis on the Energy Efficiency category. This is a clear conclusion, simply because these programs function by providing an energy usage

PAGE 109

92 Figure 4-15: Average Percentage of Tota l Line Items by Category: Three Energy Guarantee Programs guarantee to a homebuyer. Additionally, a reas onable assumption can be made that some of the IEQ measures that these programs contain are related to Energy Efficiency, since they specify construction techniques that help to streamline ventilation requirements and mechanical system operation. Another similari ty to the two other types of programs is that the variation within the categories is co mparable in order of magnitude. Therefore, while the energy guarantee programs have a narrower focus on Energy Efficiency and IEQ, they still differ in thei r opinions as to the represen tative proportions of line items that these categories should contain. Number of Minimum Points Required in Each Section This portion of the analysis has to do w ith minimum points that are required within certain categories. It was discovered that only 16 of th e 25 points-based systems had Average Percentage of Total Line Items by Category Energy Guarantee Programs 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% Energy EfficiencyIndoor Environmental Quality

PAGE 110

93 stipulations built into them for minimum points. Since the prescriptive and energy guarantee programs do not have a points-based st ructure, they were not included in this analysis. However, for those programs that did have minimum point requirements, they utilized them to ensure that a green home contains a co mbination of points from all sections within their guidelines, rather then accumulating the bulk of their certification points from one or two. In other words, a mi nimum point requirement is used to produce a certified home that spreads its points out into multiple categories. This type of control is used by the green building administrators to help foster the construction of a more balanced environmental friendly home. It should be noted that it was not possible to constr uct a meaningful geographic stratification for this secti on because there were not enough rating systems in each region with minimum points requirement. Therefore, any geographic analysis would have to be based solely on a couple (at most) of progr ams within each region, which would not provide noteworthy results. Please refer to the appendices for each rating system’s individual minimum points requirements. Points-based programs As previously mentioned, since this anal ysis is based solely upon minimum points, it is evident that the 25 point-based system s will be the only ones contributing to this section. This portion of the study began by stratifying the rating guidelines based upon the ten sustainability categories, the same way the points and line item analysis was conducted. Subsequently, the number of mi nimum points that are required in each category was compared to both the total numbe r of category points and the total points possible for each rating system, in order to crea te representational per centages. Finally, a

PAGE 111

94 simple statistical analysis was performed to come up with comparative numbers across all programs. Furthermore, some of the rating systems with multiple levels of certification require a greater amount of minimum points in each category as th e certification level increases. Therefore, these programs only had their minimum point requirements for the first level of certification factor in to the st atistical analysis. However, another level of comparison was conducted among the rating systems that have both multiple levels of certification and increasing minimum points requ irements, which will be presented at the end of this section. For informational purposes, Table 4-7 pr esents the 16 rating systems that had minimum point requirements in each of the nor malized categories, and Table 4-8 lists the nine points-based programs that do not have any minimum point requirements specified at all. The programs with multiple levels of certification and subsequent minimum point increases are designated with a (m) next to their name. Table 4-7: Sixteen Points-Based Rating Sy stems That Specified Minimum Points in Each Category Category Participating Points-Based Programs: Minimum Points Required 1. Bonus/Innovation (4 Programs) Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. (m) NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines (m) North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes 2. Builder Operations Built Green Whatcom County 3. Energy Efficiency (16 Programs) Arlington Green Home Choice Build San Antonio Green (m) Built Green Colorado Built Green King/Snohomish Counties Built Green Kitsap County Built Green Pierce County (m) Built Green Whatcom County (m) EarthCraft House Florida Green Home Destination Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. (m) Grand Traverse Green Built Program Hawaii BuiltGreen NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines (m) North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes Wisconsin Green Built Home

PAGE 112

95 Table 4-7. Continued Category Participating Points-Based Programs: Minimum Points Required 4. Homeowner Education (5 Programs) Built Green King/Snohomish Counties Built Green Kitsap County Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. (m) Hawaii BuiltGreen NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines (m) 5. Indoor Environmental Quality (13 Programs) Build San Antonio Green (m) Built Green Colorado Built Green King/Snohomish Counties Built Green Kitsap County Built Green Pierce County (m) Built Green Whatcom County (m) Florida Green Home Destination Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. (m) Hawaii BuiltGreen NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines (m) North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes Wisconsin Green Built Home 6. Preexisting Standards/Codes None 7. Resource/Material Efficiency (13 Programs) Build San Antonio Green (m) Built Green Colorado Built Green King/Snohomish Counties Built Green Kitsap County Built Green Pierce County (m) Built Green Whatcom County (m) Florida Green Home Destination Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. (m) Hawaii BuiltGreen NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines (m) North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes Wisconsin Green Built Home 8. Site Planning (12 Programs) Build San Antonio Green (m) Built Green King/Snohomish Counties Built Green Kitsap County Built Green Pierce County (m) Built Green Whatcom County (m) Florida Green Home Destination Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. (m) Hawaii BuiltGreen NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines (m) North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes Wisconsin Green Built Home 9. Water Efficiency (10 programs) Build San Antonio Green (m) Built Green Colorado Built Green Pierce County (m) Built Green Whatcom County (m) Florida Green Home Destination Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. (m) NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines (m) North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes Wisconsin Green Built Home 10. Unique Items (1 Program) Florida Green Home Destination

PAGE 113

96 Table 4-8: Points-Based Programs W ithout Minimum Points Required at All Aspen Efficient Building Program Austin Energy's Green Building Program Boulder Green Points Program Built Green Jefferson County Built Green Olympia Innovative Building Review Program LEED for Homes Scottsdale's GREENBUILDING Program Vermont Builds Greener Program Therefore, two points-based programs th at have minimum points requirements were left out of this analysis – Earth A dvantage and Green Building in Alameda County. These programs were left out because their minimum points structur e is not based on each individual category, which excludes them from comparison. Table 4-9 presents the statistical data for the comparison of each category’s minimum required points to the total number of points in the category, and Figure 4-16 displays the resulting averages. Table 4-9: Minimum Points Required in Each Category Based on the Category’s Total Point Value, For All 16 Programs Analyzed Minimum Points Required, as a Percentage of Each Category’s Total Point Value Category MeanMedianStd. Dev.RangeMin. Max.Count Bonus/Innovation 4.8%5.4%1.4%2.9%2.6% 5.6%4 Energy Efficiency 9.6%8.8%8.1%32.3%0.5% 32.8%16 Homeowner Education/O&M 25.8%31.3%13.6%31.4%5.5% 36.8%5 Indoor Environmental Quality 11.2%6.2%9.0%26.5%2.1% 28.6%13 Resource/Material Efficiency 10.0%10.6%10.2%38.0%0.9% 38.9%13 Site Planning 7.7%7.7%5.1%17.4%1.0% 18.4%12 Water Efficiency 12.4%8.9%12.1%30.4%1.1% 31.5%10 Builder Opportunities Only One Program Requires Minimum Points in This Category1 Unique Requirements Only One Program Requires Minimum Points in This Category1 Preexisting Standards/Codes N o Programs Require Minimum Points in This Category 0 According to Table 4-9 and Figure 416, Homeowner Education garnishes the highest average percentage of minimum poi nts required based upon the total number of

PAGE 114

97 Figure 4-16: Average Minimum Points-based on the Category’s Total Possible Points For All 16 Points-Based Programs points in the category. More sp ecifically, this means that builders are forced to attain approximately 25% of the points offere d within the Homeowner Education/O&M category on average. However, only five pr ograms have minimum point specifications in their guidelines for this category, which may be one of the primary reasons why this average number is skewed. Nevertheless, th e categories with the highest level of point and line item participation (Energy Efficienc y, IEQ, Resource/Material Efficiency, Site Planning and Water Efficiency) have relatively equal average numbers. Therefore, one can conclude that these categories have comp arable ratios of minimum points to total points per category. The next stage of comparison involves comparing the minimum points per category to the total number of possible points in the entire builder guideline. Table 4-10 and Figure 4-17 display the results from this portion of the analysis. Average Percentage of Minimum Points Required Based on Points Possible in Each Category 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00%Bon u s/Innova t io n Ene r gy E ffi c ie n cy H o meo w n e r Education / O&M Indo o r Enviro n men t al Qualit y R e s o ur c e / Ma t e r ial Effic ie ncy Sit e Pla n ning W a t e r Ef f iciency

PAGE 115

98 Table 4-10: Minimum Points Required in Each Category Based on the Total Points Possible in the Entire Rating System, for All 16 Programs Analyzed Percentage of Minimum Points Required Based on Total Points Possible Category MeanMedianStd. Dev.RangeMin. Max.Count Bonus/Innovation 0.2%0.1%0.1%0.1%0.1% 0.2%4 Energy Efficiency 5.3%3.8%6.1%22.3%0.5% 22.8%16 Homeowner Education/O&M 0.9%0.8%0.2%0.5%0.7% 1.2%5 Indoor Environmental Quality 1.7%1.2%1.2%3.6%0.3% 3.9%13 Resource/Material Efficiency 1.9%1.2%1.5%4.4%0.2% 4.6%13 Site Planning 1.2%0.8%1.3%5.0%0.3% 5.2%12 Water Efficiency 1.5%0.7%1.7%5.1%0.1% 5.2%10 Builder Opportunities Only One Program Requires Minimum Points in This Category 1 Unique Requirements Only One Program Requires Minimum Points in This Category 1 Preexisting Standards/Codes N o Programs Require Minimum Points in This Category 0 All Categories Combined 10.4%10.4%7.7%30.4%1.2% 31.5%16 *Note: All Categories Combined represents the cumulative number of minimum points in all categories Table 4-10 and Figure 4-17 provide insi ght into the relative minimum point weights that the rating systems have assigned to the ten normali zed categories. Just like the points and line item analysis, Energy E fficiency receives the highest average percentage. Therefore, one can conclude th at the Energy Efficiency category typically has the largest quantity of minimum points required, on average. Additionally, IEQ, Resource/Material Efficiency, Site Planning and Water Efficiency are the next four highest weighted categories. Henceforth, th ese categories could be considered the most important because the builders are forced to include points in each of them. However, Table 4-10 also indicates that there is a wide range of variation for these numbers, which is another confirmation that there is some disagreement among the programs. The final part of the minimum point an alysis involved comparing the rating systems that have multiple levels of certif ication and a corresponding increased minimum point value for their categories. For the pur poses of simplicity, th is analysis was only

PAGE 116

99 Figure 4-17: Average Percentage of Mini mum Points Required Based on Total Points Possible for All 16 Programs Analyzed conducted based on the total number of minimu m points specified in each rating system and not based on the ten normalized categories. Therefore, the total number of minimum points required in each level of certification was compared to the total number of points possible in the entire rating system. Tabl e 4-11 and Figure 4-18 display these results. Table 4-11: Minimum Points Required Base d on Total Points Possible in the Entire Rating System, for the Five Programs w ith Multiple Certification Levels Total Percentage of Minimum Points Re quired Based on Total Points Possible Certification Level MeanMedianStd. Dev.RangeMin.Max.Count Level 1 Certification 11.4%14.0%7.9%17.0%2.8%19.8%5 Level 2 Certification 17.8%21.6%12.4%27.5%4.0%31.5%5 Level 3 Certification 24.9%30.2%16.4%36.3%6.6%42.9%5 As Table 4-11 and Figure 4-18 indicate, the total number of minimum points that are required of each certification level increases at a relatively stable rate, on average. Basically, this information displays that the five programs proportionally increase Average Percentage of Minimum Points Required Based on Total Points Possible 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00%Bonus/Innovati on Ener gy Effi ci enc y H omeow ner E d uc ati on /O &M In door E n v i r onmenta l Q ua l i t y R es our c e /Mater i al Effi c ienc y Site Pla nni ng W ate r Effi c ienc y

PAGE 117

100 Figure 4-18: Average Percentage of Mini mum Points Required for the Five Programs with Multiple Certification Levels minimum point requirements for the homes that seek higher certification levels. Therefore, this is another form of control exerted by the rating systems, which serves to ensure that “3 Star” homes includes the same percentage of minimum points from each category as a “1 Star” home. However, as with the bulk of the an alysis conducted thus far, there is a wide amount of variation between the programs. Nonetheless, this analysis serves to display how some of the programs with multiple levels of certification have decided to treat minimum point requirements. Finally, it should be noted that there were programs analyzed for this study that do not require an increasing number of minimum po ints for higher certification levels, which is yet another indication of program disagreement. Average Percentage of Minimum Points Re quired Based on Total Points Possible for Programs With Multiple Certification Levels 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% Level 1 CertificationLevel 2 CertificationLevel 3 Certification

PAGE 118

101 Number of Mandatory Line Items in Each Section The next way in which the rating standard s were analyzed was by accumulating the number of mandatory line items that they contain. The purpose of a mandatory line item is to ensure that all homes meet minimum st andards, since these items must be completed by every home that is certif ied by a program. For points-ba sed systems, mandatory line items are most often prescriptive requirements that do not carry a ny point values with them, although this is not a universal truth. On the other hand, prescriptive and energy guarantee programs simply designate which of their line items must be completed because they do not have any point values in their programs. In fact, many of these programs mandate 100% of their line items, wh ich makes them entirely prescriptive (or without any flexibility). In accordance with the minimum points analysis, mandatory line items also could not be stratified according to geography, because there were not enough programs throughout the ten sepa rate regions. Please refer to the appendices to see each rating system’s mandatory line item specifications. Points-based programs As stated before, the points-based system s generally do not offer points for their mandatory items. However, four point s-based programs did, which were: Earth Advantage, Aspen Efficient Building Program Austin Energy's Green Building Program, and Built Green Colorado. Out of the 27 points-based programs, 19 have stipulations in them for mandatory line items. Table 4-12 indi cates the programs that contain mandatory line items by category, and Table 4-13 show s those programs that do not have any mandatory line items at all.

PAGE 119

102 Table 4-12: Twenty-two Points-Based Rati ng Systems That Specified Mandatory Line Items in Each Category Category Participating Points-Based Programs: Mandatory Line Items Required 1. Bonus/Innovation 2. Builder Operations EarthCraft House 3. Energy Efficiency (19 Programs) Arlington Green Home Choice Aspen Efficient Building Program Austin Energy's Green Building Program Build San Antonio Green Built Green Colorado Built Green Jefferson County Built Green Olympia Built Green Pierce County Built Green Whatcom County Earth Advantage EarthCraft House Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. Hawaii BuiltGreen LEED for Homes NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Vermont Builds Greener Program Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes Wisconsin Green Built Home 4. Homeowner Education (12 Programs) Arlington Green Home Choice Austin Energy's Green Building Program Built Green King/Snohomish Counties Built Green Kitsap County Built Green Olympia Built Green Pierce County Built Green Whatcom County Hawaii BuiltGreen LEED for Homes NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines Vermont Builds Greener Program Wisconsin Green Built Home 5. Indoor Environmental Quality (11 Programs) Aspen Efficient Building Program Austin Energy's Green Building Program Built Green Colorado Built Green Jefferson County Built Green Whatcom County Earth Advantage EarthCraft House Hawaii BuiltGreen LEED for Homes Vermont Builds Greener Program Wisconsin Green Built Home 6. Preexisting Standards/Codes (9 Programs) Austin Energy's Green Building Program Built Green Jefferson County Built Green King/Snohomish Counties Built Green Kitsap County Built Green Olympia Built Green Pierce County Built Green Whatcom County North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes 7. Resource/Material Efficiency (13 Programs) Aspen Efficient Building Program Built Green Colorado Built Green Jefferson County Built Green King/Snohomish Counties Built Green Olympia Built Green Pierce County Built Green Whatcom County Earth Advantage EarthCraft House Hawaii BuiltGreen LEED for Homes Vermont Builds Greener Program Wisconsin Green Built Home

PAGE 120

103 Table 4-12. Continued Category Participating Points-Based Programs: Mandatory Line Items Required 8. Site Planning (10 Programs) Build San Antonio Green Built Green Jefferson County Built Green Kitsap County Built Green Whatcom County EarthCraft House Florida Green Home Destination Hawaii BuiltGreen LEED for Homes Vermont Builds Greener Program Wisconsin Green Built Home 9. Water Efficiency (6 programs) Austin Energy's Green Building Program Build San Antonio Green Built Green Colorado EarthCraft House Florida Green Home Destination LEED for Homes 10. Unique Items (1 Program) Florida’s Green Home Designation Table 4-13: Points-Based Programs W ithout Mandatory Line Items at All Boulder Green Points Program Grand Traverse Green Built Program Green Building in Alameda County Innovative Building Review Program Therefore, according to Table 4-12, none of the 22 programs have mandatory line items for the Bonus/Innovation category, as woul d be expected. Also, this table indicates that two most popular categories to incl ude mandatory line items are Homeowner Education and Preexisting Codes/Standards, which contradicts prev ious weightings. However, most of the programs that have re quired items in these categories typically require that a homeowner manua l be provided and that all preexisting codes be followed; both of which are not considered to be extremely costly or difficult undertakings. Unfortunately, this section of the analysis was also forced to leave out one pointsbased program because of the guideline’s st ructure. This program was Scottsdale’s GREENBUILDING Program, which was left out because it could not have its line items stratified according to the normalized categories. However, this program is included in Figure 4-21, which is not a stratified comparison.

PAGE 121

104 The first step in this analysis was to co mpare the number of mandatory items in a category to the total number of line items in th at category. For instan ce, if a particular category contained 100 line items and 20 of them were mandatory, then 20% of the category’s line items would be mandator y. Table 4-14 and Figure 4-19 display the results below. Table 4-14: Mandatory Line Items as a Per centage of Line Items in Each Category, for the 22 Points-based Programs Points-based Programs Mandatory Line Item s as a Percentage of Category Line Items Category MeanMedianStd. Dev.RangeMin.Max.Count Energy Efficiency 14.3%10.1%14.0%48.5%0.7%49.2%19 Homeowner Education/O&M 38.2%26.2%34.6%97.9%2.1%100.0%12 Indoor Environmental Quality 18.7%11.8%17.7%47.2%2.8%50.0%11 Preexisting Standards/Codes 89.9%100.0%30.3%90.9%9.1%100.0%9 Resource/Material Efficiency 9.1%2.6%13.0%38.7%1.3%40.0%13 Site Planning 13.6%12.3%8.2%26.3%4.8%31.0%10 Water Efficiency 7.3%5.5%4.1%10.3%4.0%14.3%6 Builder Operations Only One Program Requires Mandatory Line Items in This Category1 Bonus/Innovation N o Programs Require Mandatory Line Items in This Category 0 Figure 4-19: Average Percent of Mandatory Li ne Items in Each Category for 22 PointsBased Programs Average Percentage of Category Line Items That Are Mandatory Points Based Programs 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%Energy Effi c ienc y Homeowner Ed u cation/O&M Ind oor E n v i r onmenta l Q uali t y Pr eex is ti ng Standa r ds /Co des R es our c e /Mater i al Effi c ienc y S ite Pl a nnin g Water Effic i ency

PAGE 122

105 By and large, Preexisting Standard/Codes has the greatest percent of mandatory line items on average. This is true because eight of the nine rating systems mandate 100% of the line items in this category. Therefore, for those eight programs, this category specifies that each item must be co mpleted without offering any point values. One interesting other finding is that the pr oportion of the mandatory line items in the Energy Efficiency, IEQ, Resource/Material Efficiency, Site Planning and Water Efficiency categories are the five lowest. While this may seem contradictory at first, this is true only because these categories typica lly contain many more line items than the other two, which subsequently drives their percentages downward. Finally, Table 4-14 indicates that again there is a wide vari ation between the cate gories, thus further indicating disagreement between programs. The next phase of analysis determined th e percentage of mandatory line items in each category based on the total number of lin e items in the entire rating system. For example, if a builder guideline had 1000 lin e items in the entire document, and if a certain category specified 20 mandatory line it ems, they would repres ent 2% of all line items. Table 4-15 and Figure 4-20 display the findings. Table 4-15: Mandatory Line Items as a Percen tage of Total Line Items, for the 22 PointsBased Programs Points-based Programs Mandatory Line Item s as a Percentage of Total Line Items Category MeanMedianStd. Dev.RangeMin. Max.Count Energy Efficiency 2.6%1.6%2.9%10.7%0.3% 11.0%19 Homeowner Education/O&M 0.9%0.7%1.0%3.7%0.4% 4.1%12 Indoor Environmental Quality 3.3%1.4%3.7%10.6%0.3% 10.9%11 Preexisting Standards/Codes 2.1%2.2%0.9%2.6%0.7% 3.3%9 Resource/Material Efficiency 1.4%0.8%1.4%4.0%0.3% 4.3%13 Site Planning 2.1%2.2%1.7%5.1%0.3% 5.4%10 Water Efficiency 0.7%0.6%0.2%0.6%0.5% 1.1%6 Builder Operations Only One Program Requires Mandatory Line Items 1 Bonus/Innovation N o Programs Require Mandato r y Line Items in This Category 0

PAGE 123

106 This section of the data analysis provided mixed results. Figure 4-20 indicates that Indoor Environmental Quality has the grea test average proporti on of mandatory line items in the builder guidelines, which de tracts from previous Energy Efficiency dominance. However, this may be attributed to the rising concern of occupant health and mold problems, which would therefore motivat e the builder guidelines to mandate IEQ items. Additionally, Table 4-15 shows this study’s lowest amount of variation between the categories. However, this has occurred b ecause the average percentages are such low values. Therefore, on average, it can be c oncluded that the numb er of mandatory line items is relatively small when compared to the total number of line items in a rating system. Support for this conclusi on can also be seen in Figure 4-21. Average Percentage of Mandatory Line Items by Category, Based on Total Line Items Points Based Programs 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00%E ner gy E ffi ciency H o meowner E d ucati o n/O&M Indo o r En v iro nme ntal Quali ty Preexisting Standards/Codes Re s o u rce/Material Efficiency S ite P lann i ng W ater E ffi ciency Figure 4-20: Average Percentage of Mandato ry Line Items Based on the Total Number of Line Items for the 22 Points-Based Programs

PAGE 124

107 As Figure 4-21 indicates, the average percen tage of line items that are mandatory in an entire program is below 8%. This means th at less than one out of every ten line items will be mandatory in a point-based system. While this kind of provision leads to greater program flexibility, it does not necessari ly create a home that is ideally green. Average Percentage of Mandatory Line Items In Point-Based Programs 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% Mandatory Line Items Figure 4-21: Total Percentage of Line It ems That Are Mandatory for 23 Points-Based Programs (Including Scottsdale) Prescriptive programs When compared to the points-based sy stems, the prescriptive programs are strikingly different in their approach with manda tory line items. In fact, two out of the five prescriptive programs that were analyzed for this thesis designa ted that 100% of their line items must be completed. Therefore, th ese programs do not allow for any flexibility within their certification; they function on an “all or nothing ” basis. Additionally, while there were five prescriptive programs included in this study, only four of them could be

PAGE 125

108 analyzed for mandatory line item usage. Unfortunately, the ALA Health House program did not contain any specifications as to which of its line items were mandatory. Table 4-16 displays the pres criptive programs that speci fy mandatory line items in each normalized category, and the 100% mandated programs are denoted with a *. Table 4-16: Four Prescriptiv e Programs that Specified Mandatory Line Items in Each Category Category Participating Prescriptive Rating Systems 1. Bonus/Innovation None 2. Builder Operations None 3. Energy Efficiency California Green Builder Program* CNM Building America Partner EcoBuild Program Frisco Green Building Program* 4. Homeowner Education None 5. Indoor Environmental Quality California Green Builder Program* CNM Building America Partner Frisco Green Building Program* 6. Preexisting Standards/Codes None 7. Resource/Material Efficiency California Green Builder Program* CNM Building America Partner EcoBuild Program Frisco Green Building Program* 8. Site Planning CNM Building Am erica Partner EcoBuild Program 9. Water Efficiency California Green Build er Program* Frisco Green Building Program* 10. Unique Items None Table 4-16 is similar to Table 4-4’s repr esentation, simply because prescriptive programs function by mandating certain line items One interesting indication from the table is that both of the “all or nothing” programs have their line items in the same exact categories, but neither of them have any items within Site Planning. The first comparison for the points-based programs was to look at the proportion of line items that were mandatory in each indivi dual category. However, the same statistical analysis for the prescriptive programs did not show any meaningful results, mainly because of the two 100% mandated programs that heavily skewed the results in four of the categories. However, it was possible to collect meaningful results from a second statistical analysis, in which each category’s mandatory line items were compared to the total number of line items in the entire rati ng system. This analysis displayed which

PAGE 126

109 categories the mandatory items are most h eavily weighted in, which can be found in Table 4-17 and Figure 4-22. Table 4-17: Mandatory Line Items as a Per centage of Total Line Items, for the Four Prescriptive Programs Prescriptive Programs Mandatory Line Item s as a Percentage of Total Line Items Category MeanMedianStd. Dev.RangeMin. Max.Count Energy Efficiency 25.8%30.0%15.6%34.1%4.5% 38.6%4 Indoor Environmental Quality 38.4%42.9%14.4%27.8%22.2% 50.0%3 Resource/Material Efficiency 14.0%15.5%8.6%20.5%2.3% 22.7%4 Site Planning 4.8%4.8%2.9%4.0%2.8% 6.8%2 Water Efficiency 20.9%20.9%2.6%3.7%19.0% 22.7%2 Bonus/Innovation N o Programs Require Mandatory Line Items in This Category 0 Builder Operations N o Programs Require Mandatory Line Items in This Category 0 Homeowner Education/O&M N o Programs Require Mandatory Line Items in This Category 0 Preexisting Standards/Codes N o Programs Require Mandatory Line Items in This Category 0 Figure 4-22 gives an indicati on of the mandatory nature of prescriptive programs. When compared to points-based programs, the percentage of line items that are mandatory is absolutely enormous. Therefor e, it is easy to see the principal difference Figure 4-22: Average Percentage of Total Line Items That Are Mandatory, by Category, For the Four Prescriptive Programs Average Percentage of Total Line Items That Are Mandatory (by Category) Prescriptive Programs 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% Energy EfficiencyIndoor Environmental Quality Resource/Material Efficiency Site PlanningWater Efficiency

PAGE 127

110 between these two types of programs, especia lly when Figure 4-22 is compared to Figure 4-20 or 4-21. With respect to mandatory line items, the prescriptive programs have placed the least average amount of weight on the Site Planning categ ory. Moreover, this and the Water Efficiency category have relatively small variances, which means that the four programs have similarly weighted these cate gories across their programs. Furthermore, Indoor Environmental Quality has the grea test average proporti on of mandatory line items, which indicates that approximately 40% of all line items are mandatory-IEQ related. Although Energy Efficiency is traditionally the most emphasized category in green building programs, these results seem place IEQ ahead of it in importance. However, it should be known that many of the Energy E fficiency line items throughout the programs are complex and rigorous. On the other ha nd, many of the IEQ line items are incremental improvements upon the home’s performance. For example, a mandatory Energy Efficiency line item may be that the home must be a certified Energy Star New Home, which is an extremely complex and significant task. Therefore, since this is only a single mandatory line item within the program, the re lative weights may be a little misleading. However, the purpose of this analysis was si mply to show the pr oportion of mandatory line items within each category in or der to display their weights. Energy guarantee programs The energy guarantee programs are even le ss flexible than the prescriptive programs. Specifically, two out of the three programs that were analyzed require that 100% of their line items be completed for certification. These programs – Environments for Living and APS Performance Built Homes – employ stringent controls on their

PAGE 128

111 certification procedures. The third program – TEP Guarantee Home Program – requires over 96% of its line items be completed by a homebuilder. Since these programs offer an energy usage guarantee, it is vital for them to enact such strict protocols. Because these programs are mostly 100% mandatory, much of the statistical analysis that was conducted for this secti on of the report mirrors the initial line item analysis. Therefore, this section will not repeat the general findings that were found previously. However, as a reminder, these three programs only have line items within the Energy Efficiency and Indoor Environmental Qu ality categories. They tend to place the bulk of their items within the Energy Effici ency category, while the IEQ category mainly serves as a support function. The next section of this thesis will an alyze the certificati on procedures for the points-based systems, as well as the quantity of homes that have been certified in this country by the three types of systems. Green Home Certification The final portion of discussion in this sect ion analyzes the cer tification procedures of the 35 programs. Specifically, the first part of the analysis will revolve around the number of points that are requi red to gain certification for the points-based programs. In addition, the total number of homes that have been certified since Austin’s program began in 1991 will also be presented. This section will prove to be especially important to the final section of this chap ter, because it provides some of the best clues as to which programs have been the most successful. In accordance with the points and line item analysis that was conducted earlier, the number of certified homes data was stra tified according to the different geographic regions. The results from the geographic stratif ication can be correlated with the number

PAGE 129

112 of programs in each region and the time period they have functioned for. However, the geographic stratification provide s insight into the different market demands that exist across the country. All of the original data that was used throughout this section can be found in the appendices. This data include s a tabular section that displa ys the number of homes that have been certified by the different progr ams on an annual and regional basis. Points required for certification The first analysis conducted for this sec tion was for the 27 points-based systems, which looked at the percentage of points they require for ce rtification. Given that most every program has a different quantity of total points possible and points needed for certification, the data was looked at solely on the basis of their resp ective ratios. Also, many of the programs only offer one level of ce rtification (i.e.: “C ertified”), while many offer multiple levels (i.e.: “Bronze”, “Silver”, “Gold”). Therefore, the analysis also stratified the data for this difference. Tabl e 4-18 illustrates the di fferent programs and the certification levels they offer. Also, each rating system’s individual levels and points associated with them can be found in the appendices. Table 4-18: Certification Levels Offered: Points-Based Systems Grand Traverse Green Built Program Florida Green Home Destination Aspen Efficient Building Pr ogram EarthCraft House Boulder Green Points Program Vermont Builds Greener Program Single Level Arlington Green Home Choice Earth Advantage Wisconsin Green Built Home Two Levels Green Building in Alameda County Scottsdale's GREENBUILDING Program N AHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines Innovative Building Review Program Built Green Colorado Built Green Olympia Hawaii BuiltGreen Built Green Whatcom County Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. Built Green Jefferson County Built Green Kitsap Build San Antonio Green Three Levels Built Green Pierce County

PAGE 130

113 Table 4-18. Continued N orth Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes Four Levels LEED for Homes Five Levels Built Green King/Snohomish Counties Austin Energy's Green Building Program According to Table 4-18, most of the pr ograms offer three levels of certification, which is followed by a single level of certifi cation. The least amount of programs offer two, four or five levels of certification. Tabl e 4-19 displays the statistical analysis that was conducted for the ratio of points needed fo r certification to the total points possible in the entire rating system. In other words, the number of points needed for a certification level was divided by the tota l points possible, to come up with the percentage of points required for the different levels. Addi tionally, Figure 4-19 displays the average percent of points needed for certification. Table 4-19: Percentage of Total Points Possible Needed for Certification for the 27 Points-Based Programs Percentage of Total Points Required To Gain Certification MeanMedianStd. Dev.RangeMin. Max.Count Programs With One Certificat ion Level 22.1%20.9%13.0%43.6%6.4% 50.0%8 Multiple Certification Levels Level 1 11.5%8.1%7.8%24.5%3.3% 27.8%19 Multiple Certification Levels Level 2 20.1%16.5%9.5%37.3%9.0% 46.3%19 Multiple Certification Levels Level 3 32.3%29.3%11.6%45.4%19.4% 64.8%16 Multiple Certification Levels Level 4 41.9%35.4%24.2%59.1%24.3% 83.3%5 Multiple Certification Levels Level 5 54.8%54.8%7.5%10.6%49.5% 60.1%2 According to Table 4-19 and Figure 4-23, th ere is a steady incr ease in the number of points needed for the programs with multiple levels. Furthermore, on average, those programs with one certificati on level require a few more points than a “level two” certification. Additionally, th e two programs that contain a “level five” certification require more than half of the points to be ga ined on average. Therefore, it can be stated that “level five” homes are built to th e most comprehensive and rigorous green

PAGE 131

114 Figure 4-23: Average Percentage of Points Needed for Certification specifications. Finally, Table 4-19 displays that there is a large variation in the numbers once again, which continues the disagreement th eory that has been presented throughout this analysis. The final way in which this data set was analyzed was to examine the increase in points required to gain certification for those rating systems that have multiple levels. For example, if a program contained 100 total points and required 10 for “level one” and 20 for “level two”, then level two would requir e a 10% increase in the number of points. Table 4-20 show the statistical analysis, while Figure 4-24 displays the corresponding averages. Table 4-20: Percentage Increa se in Points Needed to Gain a Higher Certification Level Increase in the Percentage of Total Points Required To Gain Certification, For Programs With Multiple Certification Levels MeanMedianStd. Dev.RangeMin. Max.Count Level 1 to Level 2 8.6%8.0%4.6%17.0%1.6% 18.5%19 Level 2 to Level 3 10.9%10.0%4.0%13.7%4.8% 18.5%16 Average Percentage of Total Points Possible to Gain Certification 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% One Certification Level Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5

PAGE 132

115 Table 4-20. Continued Increase in the Percentage of Total Points Required To Gain Certification, For Programs With Multiple Certification Levels MeanMedianStd. Dev.RangeMin.Max.Count Level 3 to Level 4 10.2%9.9%5.7%13.7%4.8%18.5%5 Level 4 to Level 5 16.6%16.6%3.4%4.8%14.1%19.0%2 According to the data, there is actually a decrease in the aver age percentage of points needed to jump from a level three cert ification to a level f our certification. This can most easily be explained by the fact that there are many programs with a level three certification as their highest plateau. Accordi ngly, these programs consider this level to be the “greenest” home, which dictates the la rgest percent of points. Therefore, this means that the majority of programs with a three-level stru cture have rigorous requirements of these homes, which drives up the average increase in points needed and therefore slightly skews the data. A fina l observation found that programs with a fifth level of certification typica lly require a 16 percent increas e in point attainment over a level four home. Therefore, based on Figure 4-23 and 4-24, it can be concluded that level five homes require the most amount of point s and line items during construction by far. While this type of comparis on is possible for points-based programs, the prescriptive programs and energy guarantee programs only require the builder to complete their mandatory line items. Therefore, this analys is would be repetitive and not worthwhile. However, the next section of this report will discuss the number of green homes that have been certified in this country since 1991.

PAGE 133

116 Figure 4-24: Average Percentage of Points Needed to Gain a Higher Certification Level Number of certified homes – yearly data Another layer of examination that was completed for the rating systems was to analyze the number of homes they have been certified on an annual basis. However, some of the programs did not have this data available, so a limited sample resulted. Table 4-21 displays the programs that were ab le to supply annual data for this study. Also, please refer to appendices to see all of the home certification data tables. Table 4-21: Twenty Three Program s With Annual Certification Data Programs That Supplied Annua l Certification Data Built Green Colorado Innovative Building Review Program Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. Arlington Green Home Choice Grand Traverse Green Built Program Florida Green Home Destination Built Green King/Snohomish Counties EarthCraft House Built Green Kitsap N orth Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Built Green Pierce County Build San Antonio Green Built Green Olympia Vermont Builds Greener Program Built Green Whatcom County Wi sconsin Green Built Home Austin Energy's Green Building ProgramWestern N.C. Healthy Built Homes Points-Based Programs Scottsdale's GREENBUILDING ProgramEarth Advantage Average Increase in the Percent of Total Points Needed to Gain Certification 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% Level 1 to Level 2Level 2 to Level 3 Level 3 to Level 4Level 4 to Level 5

PAGE 134

117 Table 4-21. Continued Programs That Supplied A nnual Certification Data EcoBuild Program CNM Building America Partner Prescriptive Programs Frisco Green Building Program Energy Guarantee Programs N one Therefore, since there were not any en ergy guarantee programs that could supply annual data, they will not be included in this section. Fi gures 4-25 and 4-26 show the number of homes that these 23 pr ograms have certified each year. Number of Certified Homes Per Year Points Based and Prescriptive Programs 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005 Figure 4-25: Annual Certification Data All 23 Programs As Figure 4-25 indicates, there has been a relatively steady increase in the number of homes that these 23 programs have certifie d annually. 1994 marks the first year in which data was available for Austin’s program and they certified 14 homes that year. However, in 2005, Austin’s program certifi ed 1118 homes, which represents an enormous degree of market acceptance. The gr aph also indicates that the past five years have been extremely productive for the green ra ting systems, which can be attributed to

PAGE 135

118 the number of programs that have started up around the country since 2000. Please refer to Figure 4-26 for a more de tailed certification breakdown. Number of Certified Homes Per Year Points Based Programs Only 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005 Number of Certified Homes Per Year Prescriptive Programs Only 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 20012002200320042005 Figure 4-26: Annual Certification for Po ints-Based and Prescriptive Programs

PAGE 136

119 As Figure 4-26 indicates, th ere was a slight drop off in certified homes for the points-based programs in 2005. This may be attributed to the housing boom that occurred over the past few years, simply because builders could have been trying to maximize their profits and green building s tigmas may have hindered green growth. However, due to the large amount of programs that were started up in 2005, it is doubtful that the green building movement is losi ng momentum. Conversely, the prescriptive programs, for which data was only availabl e beginning in 2001, had a large increase in certified homes over 2005. The next phase of certified home analysis re lates to the total number of homes that have been certified by all three types of sy stems. Only six programs did not have any data available on the number of homes that ha ve been certified, which is shown in Table 4-22. Coincidentally, all six of thes e programs are points-based systems. Two of the programs listed Table 4-22 – Hawaii BuiltGreen and Green Building in Alameda County – do not track the homes built according to their specifications. Also, the NAHB’s program did not have any information regarding the number of homes that have been built by their recently formed “Gr een Building Initiative” in various markets around the country. Build Green Jefferson Count y could not be reached at the time this study was completed for comment on this issu e. Finally, Aspen and Boulder’s programs are mandatory, which indicates that they cover all permitted homes in the area. Unfortunately, their municipalities were not able to supply information regarding the number of permits issued.

PAGE 137

120 Table 4-22: Programs Wit hout Certification Data Programs That Did Not Have Any Certification Data N AHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines Green Building in Alameda County Hawaii BuiltGreen Aspen Efficient Building Program Built Green Jefferson County Boulder Green Points Program Therefore, 29 of the 35 total programs were able to supply data on the total number of homes they have certified over their hist ories. Figure 4-27 show s the total number of homes that have been built by each of the different types of programs up until February of 2006. Number of Certified Homes by Program Type to February 2006 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 Points Based ProgramsPrescriptive ProgramsEnergy Guarantee Programs Figure 4-27: Number of Cer tified Homes by the Three Types of Programs as of February 2006 Thus, it is obvious that the energy guaran tee programs trump the other two types, but this can mainly be attributed to th e Environments for Living program that has certified 75,000 homes since 2001. Additi onally, the points-based programs have certainly built more homes than the prescriptive ones, but this is because there were only five prescriptive programs analyzed, compared to the 21 points-based programs. Also,

PAGE 138

121 when all three program type s are combined, there have been just under 160,000 new homes built according to the different gr een specifications by the 29 programs. Finally, many of the programs indicated that they expect to have an increase in the number of homes that they certify over the next couple of years. This especially holds true for the USGBC’s LEED for homes program which did not have any certified homes as of February of 2006. However, this program is still in pilot fo rm, and they currently have over 500 projects registered with the program, which means they are on their way to being certified. Hopefully, this trend will continue for the gambit of rating systems that exist around the country. Number of certified homes geographic data After analyzing the raw certi fication numbers, they were then stratified according to geography. This data provided some key information about where the greatest numbers of green homes are being constructe d. Accordingly, the largest proportions lie in the areas with the most programs, give n that the energy guarantee programs and nationwide programs are excluded. Figure 4-28 provides a graphic representation of the geographic stratification of the certified homes. Therefore, according to Figur e 4-28, it is evident that the Southwestern region of the country currently has the largest number of certified homes if the national programs are disregarded. This can partially be attr ibuted to the number of programs that exist there, but it can also be linked to market demand. An argument can be made that market demand drives program creation; they are at le ast interrelated to a degree. The next two highest regions are the Pacifi c Northwest and Southern Regi ons, which also have a large number of programs in them. Finally, the large numbers for the National programs can once again be connected to the Environmen ts for Living program and the enormous

PAGE 139

122 Figure 4-28: Number of Certified Homes Based on the Geographic Regions success it has endured. This analysis has provided some obvious indications that th e Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions of the country are severely lacking in certif ied green homes. This is a primary indication that more programs need to be started in these areas, especially because much of the existing home stock in th ese regions are heated with either oil or natural gas. As the energy prices continue to rise, there is bou nd to be an increasing market demand for environmentally efficient homes in these areas. The next section of this report will tie t ogether the information that was presented in this chapter, with the majo r issues and trends that were discussed in Chapter 2. This information will be crucial to the final section in this chapter. Number of Certified Homes by Region and Program Type to February 2006 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000Mi d wes t Nationa l N ew England Pacific Northwest Southe as ter n Souther n Southw es tern Points Based Programs Prescriptive Programs Energy Guarantee

PAGE 140

123 Analysis in Relation to the Issues and Tr ends in Residential Green Rating Systems While this chapter has discussed and revi ewed many of the different methods in which the residential green rating systems have organized themselves, it has not yet determined the influence of these decisions. Ma ny of the key issues and trends that were mentioned in Chapter 2 have a direct relationshi p to the rating system analysis. The data has given indications as to how the various programs have decided to address some of the topics of concern. The first issue that has been discovered through data analysis relates to criteria selection. It has become evid ent that there is a huge amount of disagreement between the different programs about which items to in clude in their programs and where to place proper emphasis. While the majority of pr ograms have placed th e largest amount of stress on Energy Efficiency, Resource/Mate rial Efficiency, Indoor Environmental Quality, Site Planning and Water Efficiency, there are large discrepancies between their proportions of points, line items, minimum poi nts and mandatory items. Moreover, the data analysis has shown that one of the larg est trends is to offer the largest amount of points in Energy Efficiency, but this has not necessarily translated to the category requiring the most minimum points or mandatory items. This has proven to be true not only between programs, but also between diffe rent geographic regions. Therefore, it seems evident that criteria selection will be highly dependant on the opinions and beliefs of the rating system creators. Furthermore, th is is an indication that research needs to be conducted on the environmental effectiveness of the as-built homes, so that a more definitive framework for criteria success can be developed. Another issue that this anal ysis has brought to the forefront involves life cycle assessments (LCAs). Chapter 2 noted that LCAs have the potential to provide some

PAGE 141

124 direction for criteria selecti on, at least for the Resource/Ma terial Efficiency category. However, only two of the 35 programs that we re included in this study contain provisions that offer credit for LCAs. Therefore, the benefits of LCAs need to be properly communicated to the rating system organiza tions, so that they can understand their significance. A third issue that has been highlighted by this study is the voluntary vs. mandatory debate. Only three of the 35 programs currently have a mandatory means of participation, which indicates that industry resi stance may be quelling this type of system. Moreover, mandatory standards can only be expect ed to arise in those markets that have a significant amount of market demand. Otherwise, there would not be a driving factor for their adoption. However, this study has found that the mandatory programs are similar in structure to the voluntary programs, which i ndicates that these programs have modeled their programs after existing ones. Hopefull y, this practice will stimulate some of the larger homebuilders that operate in these ma rkets to begin using voluntary standards in other locations around the country. The final issue that has been accentuated by th is analysis is the need for a localized standard. Because there are so many environmen tal issues that are regionally specific, it is important to tailor a rating system properly. While this st udy has shown that there is certainly a good degree of va riation between locations, it has also shown that the geographic regions place emphasis on different ca tegories. Therefore, it can be inferred that many of the programs analyzed have attempted to regionalize their criteria. However, without a valid data set on as-built homes, it remains to be seen how effective these attempts have been.

PAGE 142

125 Unfortunately, this study was not able to co llect any data on the costs of building a green home. However, there has been a significant amount of evidence provided in Chapter 2 that indicates that green homes are not inordinately expensive and that consumers are willing to pay for efficiency upgrades. However, this evidence has also shown that builders have not yet realized the market potential for green homes. Therefore, it is important for green rating sy stems to begin heavily communicating to the construction industry the benefits that can be derived from using their systems. The final portion of this study will utilize all of the information that has been provided thus far. It will cr eate a process guide for the cr eation of a green rating system in the state of Florida. The Construction of A Successful Residential Green Rating System According to the culmination of informati on that has been provided throughout this study, there are many variables and issues that residential green rating systems encounter in their creation and use. Add itionally, there is a vast range of permutations that any one rating system can assume, which adds to th e level of uncertainty and complexity for rating system creators. Therefore, the firs t portion of this secti on will briefly compare five of the most successful rating systems. Next, major considerations for any new rating system will be discussed. Finally, this section will propose a process guide that is specifically tailored for the state of Florida. The Five Most Successful Rating Systems to Date The determination of success for a green ra ting system is somewhat of a subjective process. However, this study has presented a va st amount of data that provides a series of clues. The first indicator that was used in this procedure was to investigate the market penetration rates of the various programs. This was undertaken by determining the

PAGE 143

126 programs that have the largest annual perc entage increase in the number of homes certified homes. Secondly, the rating syst ems were compared based on their level of flexibility, which relates to the total number of points possible in th e entire rating system, the percentage of points needed for certif ication, and their verification mechanisms. However, this process deliberately exclude d those programs that had extremely low requirements for a certified home. Finally, the number of mandatory line items and minimum points that the rating systems employ was factored into th e selection process, because they tend to indicate the programs th at have attempted to facilitate systems thinking. As for the market penetration rates, only those programs that supplied annual certification data could be included in this analysis. Additionall y, in order to present comparable numbers, only those programs who ha ve been active for the past five or more years were considered. This process was used filter out some of the newer programs that have not yet been fully established in their location. Table 4-23 displays some of the highlighted programs that were analyzed, a nd the raw numbers used for this analysis appear in the appendices. Table 4-23: Successful Program Home Certification Data Program Avg. Annual Increase in Certified Homes (2001-2005) Number of Homes Certified (2001-2005) Austin Energy’s Green Building Program 40.2% 3,551 Built Green Colorado 7.2% 23,230 EarthCraft House 23.1% 2,692 Florida Green Home Designation 249.1% 251 Scottsdale’s GREENBUI LDING Program 149.7% 776 As Table 4-23 indicates, the five programs have enjoyed a steady increase in the number of homes they have certified each year Also, the number of homes they have certified ranges from Florida’s 251 to Co lorado’s 23,230. However, the raw number of

PAGE 144

127 homes that Colorado has certifi ed can be attributed to market demand in the region and also because they have been operating since 1995. On the other hand, the state of Florida is relatively new to the concept of certifie d green homes, since the program has only been in place since 2001. Consequentl y, these programs were the ones that were deemed to be successful in their markets based on home cer tification. Therefore, this analysis shows that there is the potential for a successful rating system throughout the country, since these programs come from three different geographic regions. The same five programs were compared against one another to determine their relative flexibility. First, th eir procedures of verification were looked at, followed by the total number of points in the ra ting system and finally by the percentage of points needed for “level 1” certification (if multi-tiered). Table 4-24 displays this data. Table 4-24: Successful Rati ng System Flexibility Program Verification Total # Points % Needed to Certify Austin Energy’s Green Building Progr am Self-Cert. (1 star) 316 12.7% Built Green Colorado Test & Inspect. 867 8.1% EarthCraft House Inspection 672 22.2% Florida Green Home Designation Inspection 571 35.0% Scottsdale’s GREENBUILDI NG Program Inspection 399 6.5% Table 4-24 indicates that Ea rthCraft House and Florida’s program allow for the least amount of flexibility because they re quire the greatest proportion of points. Additionally, Colorado and Scotts dale’s programs give thei r builders the greatest amount of freedom in their choice of points. Howe ver, in terms of certif ication growth, Table 423 indicated that Florida’s program has expe rienced the greatest amount of growth while Colorado’s saw the least. Therefore, a conclusi on can be drawn that flexibility in a rating system does not necessarily translate into wi despread usage; other factors must help contribute to builder acceptance.

PAGE 145

128 Finally, the same five programs were an alyzed based on the number of minimum points and mandatory line items specified. This is not only another measure of flexibility, but it also indicates which program s have facilitated systems thinking. Table 4-25 shows the data for the percent of mini mum points relative to the total number of points possible for the entire guideline, and mandatory line items relative to the total number of line items in the entire guideline. Table 4-25: Successful Program Systems Thinking Program % Min. Pts. % Mand. L.I. Austin Energy’s Green Building Program 0.0% 11.2% Built Green Colorado 1.2% 4.3% EarthCraft House 11.2% 14.1% Florida Green Home Designation 31.5% 0.9% Scottsdale’s GREENBUI LDING Program0.0% 13.2% As Table 4-25 indicates, each of the five programs has approached minimum point requirements and mandatory line items in di fferent ways. Austin and Scottsdale’s programs have opted to only include mandato ry line items without specifying minimum points in each category. Flor ida’s program has done the opposite by requiring a large amount of minimum points and a relatively small number of mandatory line items. Conversely, EarthCraft House has decided to offer a mix of the two, and Colorado’s program has the smallest proportions of bot h. Therefore, based on the numbers above, this analysis can conclude th at Florida’s program and EarthC raft House are the two that foster the greatest amount of systems thinki ng. They have done this by requiring their homebuilders to include a large amount of their criteria. Inte restingly, these two programs are also the ones that require the greatest proportion of points for certification. The result of this small comparison show s that there are many different possible reasons for why a rating system may be succe ssful. Therefore, there is not a defined

PAGE 146

129 linear relationship between program structure, organization and success. However, this thesis proposes that the most successful program s are the ones that can foster the greatest amount of participation while ba lancing simplicity with effectiv eness. This is precisely why any developing rating system must unde rgo deliberate and car eful planning, which includes a substantial amount of consultation with experts a nd other successful programs. As stated earlier, the process for de termining success among different rating systems is largely subjective, especially if it does not include environmental performance data from a sample of as-built homes. Howeve r, by utilizing the data sets that have been compiled for this research, a reasonable dete rmination can be made on the basis of home certification and flexibilit y. Although many experts ha ve implied that builder participation is largely dependant on a rating sy stem’s level of flexibility, this analysis has not necessarily found this to be true. Fortunately, this inform ation represents the opportunity for a rating system to be envir onmentally rigorous and still be accepted by the construction industry. Primary Considerations for a Newly Formed Rating System Ultimately, an ideal rating system is one th at is widely accepted and utilized by the construction industry. Unfortunately, this goa l is much more easily said than done. However, this thesis has provided a number of indications about how this can be accomplished. Therefore, this section of the report will present some of the major considerations that must be made when a new standard is created. One of the paramount conflicts that a ny rating system encounters is gaining a positive reception by homebuilders while mainta ining its integrity in the environmental community. One solution to this paradox is to mirror the most successful rating systems in the country. However, a “copycat” system may not appropriately address the local

PAGE 147

130 environmental issues. Another solution is to create an entirely new standard from scratch, but this process can be cumbersome at best. Therefore, this study recommends that any new rating system should be created by combining the past research of the most successful programs around the country while obtain ing input relevant to regional needs. Along those same lines, a newly formed rating system has a vital need for market demand, both from consumers and builders. Th erefore, the critical question of demand stimulus must be addressed: which group is be st suited to drive green home sales? This study asserts that the most effective way to proliferate a new green rating system is to first seek builder acceptance. If this objective is met, consumer demand should accordingly rise because of product recognition. A green home should be an easy sell to most established buyers, especially if it is pr operly touted as a money saver. Moreover, the basic economics of supply and demand dict ate that consumers cannot desire a product that does not exist in the mark etplace. Therefore, the best way to encourage green home construction is to seek willing builders. The best manner in which to achieve th e aforementioned recommendations is to conduct a series of charrettes to determine the organization and structure of the rating system – its core characteristics and builder guidelines. These meetings should include a wide variety of stakeholders, including: homebuilders, consumers, realtors, local government officials, lenders and environmen tal experts (NAHB Research Center, 1999). The goal of the charrette should be to determin e the most relevant lo cal issues, select the best structure for the market and choose the best criteria for the rating system. While each stakeholder group should participate in all discussions, each member will be expected to contribute to specific needs. E nvironmental experts should specify regionally

PAGE 148

131 sensitive issues for the area, aid in criteria selection and determine proper criteria weighting. Builders, homebuyers, and local government officials should help to determine the most feasible ra ting system structure with resp ect to verification, incentives and levels of certification. Additionally, lo cal governmental official s should also provide input into the possibili ty of any building code conflicts and resolutions that may arise from the rating standards. Finally, lenders should be solicited to provide financial backing for the new rating system, wh ich is critical to its success. Many of the core characteristics set the t one for the rating system’s success in the marketplace. For instance, the body that has administrative authority can largely determine its penetration in to the homebuilding industry, especially if a builder’s association backs it. Also, financial and enviro nmental partnerships ca n be critical to the viability of the program, since these dictat e resource availability and the level of expertise. Therefore, each co re characteristic that was listed in this study must be a major consideration to any program formation committee. Another key issue is the environmental rigor of the program. If a rating system is too difficult, it will not be accepted. Conversely, if it is overly simplistic and ineffective, then it will lose all credibility and fail. Therefore, this study recommends having various planned phases for the rating system. The introductory phase will involve the least amount of difficulty for certification, wh ich will subsequently be followed by increasingly difficult permuta tions. This type of proce ss will allow for builders to acclimate to the new rating system, and as time progresses, many of the criteria will become second-natured practices for them. Th erefore, increasing levels of difficulty can be introduced in later phases that will not be met with resistance or av oidance altogether.

PAGE 149

132 Finally, a rating system must be able to properly communicate the benefits of building green. This should not only be c onducted by an aggressive marketing campaign, but the constructed homes must also speak for themselves. If a system is to be successful, it has to achieve the goals that it sets. Unfortunately, rating systems are so incredibly complex that there are likely some issues that have not been covered by this report. This is precisely w hy a charrette fostering a wide range of viewpoints is so critical in the beginning pha ses of standard creation. Adaptation to the State of Florida The final portion of this thesis will speci fically address the previous findings and relate them to state of Florida. While the prior section was general in its recommendations, this portion will contain a hi gher level of detail. Since local issues dominate residential green rating systems, it is much more feasible to provide a definitive process guide for a single area, which is this section’s goal. The first step in the process is to specifically determine regional potential for green homes. This can be accomplished by examini ng other markets that have been successful in green endeavors. More specifically, the areas that the Florida Green Home Designation, LEED for Homes and the NAHB’s Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines have ventured into can be studied for their demand characteristics. Additionally, surveys can be conducted of both homebuyers and homebu ilders. It is expected that the largest potential for green home acceptance will be lo cated close to major metropolitan areas, which mostly lie in the coastal regions of Florida. The central portion of the state generally has lower median incomes, which mean s that housing affordabili ty is an issue. However, the potential exists to create resi dential green standards that are centered on affordable housing projects, simply because green homes can actually decrease net

PAGE 150

133 monthly payments. Since this study did not fo cus on any of the affordable green projects that exist in various locations, this po tential market will be disregarded. Once market potential is estab lished, the next stage of standard development should be to seek input from the stakeholders. This hinges on the ideals of the charrette that was presented earlier. More specifically, a sta ndard committee should be formed in order to facilitate the writing of the rating system This committee should include county and municipal officials from planning department s, a sample of consumers, custom and production builders that exist around the st ate, various subcontractor groups, and environmental experts from academia and i ndustry. Additionally, lenders should be solicited for financial in put and potential support. The first objective of the charrette should be to determine the core characteristics of the rating system. Essentiall y, the organization type that will administer the program must be chosen, and it is recommended that an alliance be formed. Ideally, this alliance should include all 30 homebuilders associatio ns across the state, members from the Florida League of Cities, members from th e Florida Association of Counties, members from various utility companies, and member s from the state’s universities. Such a comprehensive alliance would all but ensure a huge degree of pa rticipation around the state. Another core characteristic that must be determined is the participatory nature of the program. Since voluntary standards ha ve had a large degree of success around the country, it is suggested to choose voluntary over mandatory. Moreover, it would be incredibly difficult to mandate a standard ac ross the entire state. Also, the committee should decide the verification procedures for certification. While self-certification offers

PAGE 151

134 an inexpensive option, one major drawback can be a degree of skepticism from the environmental community. Also, for a stat ewide standard, inspections by the rating system administrators would pr ove to be a costly endeavor. Therefore, one suggestion is to have third party testing c onducted for key elements such as energy efficiency. While there are costs associated with this practice, they can often be offset by other factors. A further cost consideration involves the fees that are charged to builders to participate. Fees are generally a vital com ponent of a rating system’s solvency because of their administrative overhead. However, build er resistance to fees could be offset if local jurisdictions agree to expedite permitting or lower fees. Additionally, there must be secondary financial support mechanisms for the rating system’s administrative needs, which is why it is important to partner with lending institutions. If they perceive potential benefits from partne ring with the rating system, certain banks may want to try and leverage the green mortgage market through advertising. The final cost consideration that must be addressed are the incentives offered to builders or buyers. In addition to permitting preference from various municipalities, local utility companies may be able to offer re bates to consumers. Additionally, lending institutions may be willing to offer some sort of rebate to builders that generate business with them. The rating system administrators should also offer non-monetary incentives to builders, such as: training, marketing, program signage, etc. Another primary objective of the charre tte is to formulate the principal environmental goals of the rating system. These goals should be specific environmental performance targets for any newly constructed green home. Some of the most pressing environmental issues that must be consid ered for the state of Florida are: water

PAGE 152

135 efficiency, indoor environmental quality with respect to mold, stormwater remediation that limits watershed pollution, wetland c onservation, hurricane survival, and energy efficiency with special attention given to sola r heat gain. All of these issues should be primary concerns by the builder’s and environmental experts in the charrette, so that they can be properly addressed in a practical manner. Once the specific local environmental goals are outlined, the next step in the process is to select from a host of other pree xisting criteria. These criteria are most easily and efficiently adopted from othe r residential rating systems. Also, the selected criteria should be limited in quantity so the most impor tant issues are highlighted. Finally, the next logical step is to break the criteria into similar categories so builders can more easily understand their objectives. At this point, the selection committee s hould decide which of their criterions are going to be mandated. It is recommende d that the rating system contain enough mandatory items to not only ensure performan ce objectives, but also to properly facilitate systems thinking by the contract ors. However, the percenta ge of mandatory line items should not be inordinately larger than the averages found by this research. Otherwise, builders may perceive them as being too prescriptive, and therefore difficult. Additionally, it is suggested that the green guideline utilizes mandatory line items instead of minimum point requirements to achieve this goal, mainly because mandatory line items ensure completion of certain items. Ho wever, if certain categories cannot logically contain mandatory items, minimum point re quirements should be used so that the category is not skipped altogether.

PAGE 153

136 Once the mandatory items have been c hosen, the committee should decide on the various weights that their point-based items This process should hinge upon perceived difficulty or actual cost implicat ions of the criterion, because this will be the motivating factor for the builders when they choose wh ich items to complete. Additionally, LCAs should be conducted on various material line items to determine the proper weighting structure. Along the same line, LCAs should be one of the primary considerations for inclusion within the rating syst em. However, until their aforementioned limitations from Chapter 2 are resolved so that they can be efficiently conducted in the housing market, they should remain only as a non-manda tory point generating line item. Next, the certification procedure for the system should be determined. This can either be based on a single level or multiple le vels. Multiple certification levels have the potential to offer a distinct advantage over a single level: ce rtain builders may perceive a multiple level rating system to be less difficu lt than one with a single level. This is because the builder will see that a 2/3/4/5 le vel home must achieve a greater quantity of points, which therefore causes the level 1 requ irement to appear much easier to obtain. Thus, a level 1 home will have the potential to be widely utilized in the early phases of the rating system, and the proper placement of mandatory line items will result in the improvement of the built environment. Moreove r, multiple certification levels also offer niche-marketing opportunities to builders who choose a hi gher level, which can be another driving factor for widespread usage. The final issue that the rating standard co mmittee needs to establish is the number of points that will be required for certific ation. However, if the mandatory items are carefully chosen, this issue will not be as important because the rating program has

PAGE 154

137 already assured a certain level of performance. Nonetheless, the amount of points needed to certify a home should be simultaneously ch allenging and achievable (Cole, 2001). The goals of the rating system will be compromi sed if it is too easy to certify a home. Conversely, if the points require d for certification ar e unattainable by most builders, then there will be few green homes produced. Ther efore, one potential solution is to offer multiple levels of certifica tion, with a mid-level home representing the desired environmental effectiveness. This means that a level 1 home will actually be below their expectations, but this helps to facilitate participation. Lastly, once all of the various issues have been resolved, the rating standard must be implemented. The first stage of implement ation should be to pur sue the markets that indicated highest consumer and builder dema nd. Subsequently, a si gnificant marketing campaign should be started that highlights th e program and the benefits that can be derived from it. Later stages of implemen tation should involve an increasing geographic scope while the program is adapted to fix unforeseen problems that may have arisen. Finally, as previously mentioned, the later stages of the program should also include increasing levels of difficult y, as local builders become accustomed to building green. Table 4-26 represents the summary of the process guide that was created in this section. Table 4-26: Process Guide Summary Process Step Execution 1. Conduct a charrette Invite consumers, builders, subcontractors, environmental experts, local government representatives and members from academia to discuss the rating system’s goals and structure.

PAGE 155

138 Table 4-26. Continued 2. Determine core characteristics Establish the organizational type, verification procedures, participation method, fee structure, incentive structure, and financial support. 3. Determine environmental criteria Focus primarily on determining proper local issues, then adopt preexisting criteria from other systems to round out the program. 4. Determine mandatory items Come up with baseline environmental goals, and assign mandatory items based on these objectives 5. Weight criteria Assign grea ter point values to the items that are either more difficult or costly to complete. 6. Determine certification procedures Decide if multiple levels or a single level should be used, and determine the number of points required for certification 7. Implement program Pursue the most interested markets first, then spread out geographically and update rating system when needed Finally, there is a current conflict that exists within the state of Florida regarding residential green rating systems. In essence, there are three programs that are currently available for use, which could create potenti al builder or consumer confusion. These three standards are the NAHB’s Model Gr een Homebuilding Guidelines, LEED for Homes and the Florida Green Home Designation. A potential solution to this issue lies in the creation of a new standard that represents a hybrid between th e three. LEED for Homes is the most environmentally rigorous, NAHB’s Model Green Homebuilding Gu idelines is the most flexible, and the Florida Green Home Designation is the most locally sensitive. Therefore, a new standard should be developed based on the model that wa s introduced in this se ction that utilizes the strengths of these three programs. Provi ding a balance between them is essential to achieving widespread market usage. If the aforementioned considerations are

PAGE 156

139 implemented, there could be a standard th at transforms the residential landscape throughout the state.

PAGE 157

140 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Conclusions This study has presented information pertai ning to residential green rating systems in the U.S. A literature review was conducte d in order to determine some of the basic characteristics of rating systems. Additionall y, the literature review introduced some of the major trends and issues that rating syst ems face. The next chapter discussed the research methodology that was employed to co mpare 35 different rating systems to one another. This comparison was conducted by examining the builder guidelines and creating numerous databases about the inform ation that they contain. Each system’s guideline was compared on the basis of its point and line item structure, its mandatory items, its minimum points and its certification standards. Moreover, much of this data was stratified for content and geographic regi on. Finally, Chapter 4 discussed the results of this comparison, which found that there is a large amount of disagreement between the various systems not only in the statistical analysis, but also in the vast amount of organizational options that a rating system mu st decide between (cor e characteristics). Also, information was presented about the numbe r of homes that have been certified in this country since 1991, which was also sorted by geographic region. Finally, a process guide was created for the state of Florida. Th e purpose of this guide was to help the state come up with a single, unified standard that will have long-term success. Residential green rating systems can still be considered in the development phase. Many of the different guidelines have vastly different requirements and elements within

PAGE 158

141 them, which is a product of their infancy. It can certainly be argue d that there is an emerging trend to construct green homes in the U.S., simply based on the number of programs that have blossomed in the past five years. However, the need to create a more sustainable built environment in the resident ial sector of construction continues to increase; too many homes are being built with a common steadfast goal – maximize profit by maximizing quantity. Until the ma instream building industry decides to improve upon their construction practices, th ere will be little change. Even though residential green rating systems represent a pr omising shift towards sustainability, they exist in a limited number of markets and do not yet have a high enough market capture rate. Recommendations for Further Research While this study represents an important st ep of knowledge creation in the field or green building guidelines, there are numerous ar eas of research that currently are lacking. Unfortunately, this study’s scope was limited to the analysis of the existing residential green rating systems and the creation of a process for producing a new standard. The following is a brief list of information that is needed in this field, specifically for residential green rating systems. As-Built Home Environmental Effectiveness Analysis One of the critical research areas th at remains unexplored is quantifying the environmental effects that have resulted from utilizing the green rating systems. There have been few, if any, studies that have looked into this topic. Virt ually all of the rating systems that were contacted for this study indicated that this kind of data is too cumbersome to collect, and that the rating system administrators did not have the resources to do so.

PAGE 159

142 While this issue can become extremely complex, even at the onset of data collection, there is the potential to analyze the as-built homes to a reasonable degree. The research areas should hinge upon the followi ng topics: actual ener gy and water usage, indoor air quality improvements, and material use life cycle an alysis. Actual energy and water usage data could be collected from local utility companies, and any models that are developed must take occupant usage patterns and demographic prof iles into account. Indoor air quality improvements could be physic ally measured in the homes both at the point of substantial completion and after one year of occupancy, in order to control for initial off-gassing effects that may have occu rred. Finally, life cycle analyses could be conducted using one of the existing models, in order to determine the true effects of the home’s material selection. In terms of research scope, this reco mmendation is for the study to be conducted on only a few of the existing rating systems. Analyzing the 40-plus systems that exist throughout the country would prove to be astronomically expensiv e. Therefore, if one or more of the rating system’s homes were analyzed, some baseline numbers could be established. Subsequently, these baseline num bers could be generalized for other rating systems because many of the programs use id entical line items in their programs. Although this research topic would be complex and very time consuming, it is absolutely vital. Without having any empirical evidence about the true environmental effects that the rating systems are having on their homes, th ere is no way to categorically ensure that they are meeting their goal to improve the built environment. Market Rate Effects of Green Rating Systems Another important research area involves tracking the market rates of the homes that utilize a residential rating system dur ing construction. Such a study would provide

PAGE 160

143 clues about the market demand that consumers have for green homes. This topic would have to rely upon the programs that have b een up and running for a number of years in order to have a large enough sample size. Wh ile a couple of studies have looked at this topic on a micro scale, it would be valuable to try and compare programs to one another to gain a sense of mark et demand stratification. Green home resale values could be comp aratively assessed against other non-green homes in a specific market area. Subsequently, the results from each market area could be compared to one another, to discover if a “green premium” exists. The fundamental question that needs to be answ ered is the following: does gr een home certification, in and of itself, improve the market values of homes, or is it because of the added features that a green home typically contains? In order to answer this question, the sales comparison method of real estate valuation could be em ployed, so that individual features could be filtered out of an aggregate home price. If th is research were to be completed, it would provide insight into the value that may or not exist for usi ng a green certification system in the residential marketplace. Perception Survey Another research area that w ould be important to this field would be to conduct a series of surveys directed at the various st akeholders involved in the residential green rating systems. More specifically, there co uld be surveys conducted of the builders who have used the programs, consumers who have purchased a certified home, and of the rating system administrators themselves. If a survey was conducted of the builder s who have used the programs, it could provide some valuable insight into some of the key success factors for a rating system. Some of the goals of the survey could be as follows: determine why the builders use the

PAGE 161

144 programs (market driven, company culture, prof it driven, etc), find out their experiences with how difficult it is to bu ild a certified home, discover th eir opinions of the guidelines and what could be changed to make them mo re convenient to use, etc. These issues would provide clues to the environmental community about how to achieve greater participation from the construction industry. Similarly, a survey of homebuyers or ra ting administrators could also try to discover some of the key issues that are prevalent to the ra ting systems. Each of the stakeholder groups that are surv eyed would need to receive a customized survey based on their specific function, in order to achieve the most valuable results. Therefore, it would be most beneficial to produce three separate survey templates that w ould be distributed to the proper audience. In conclusi on, if positive changes are to be made in this arena, it is critical to determine the opinions of the stakeholders that use them. Recommendation Conclusion The aforementioned recommendations represen t needed research in the field of residential green rating systems that culminate into the larger goal of defining success. One of the principal problems is that a “s uccessful” residential green rating system is currently an ambiguous concept. There are multiple tiers of success for any one rating system that include: market success base d on consumer demand, market success based on builder demand, environmental success based on efficient construction practices and their results, and success relating to the theory of sustainability. Figure 5-1 depicts a model of success for residential green rating systems and th e relationships that exist between them. Each success tier has distinct variables that need to be discovered, developed or defined. For example, market success based on consumer demand may hinge upon

PAGE 162

145 Figure 5-1: Rating Sy stem Success Tiers overall cost savings or intr insic benefits. Similarly, market success based on builder demand is simply a function of utilizati on, but this concept is underpinned by the standard’s ease of use, straightforwardne ss, cost implications, etc. Additionally, environmental success of the green rating syst ems has not been analyzed for the as-built homes, so there is not a baseline to judge th em by. Finally, there is no current feeling of whether or not the goals of sustainability – economic, social and environmental – are being met by the rating systems, or if they even have the potential to meet them at all. Therefore, further research is of the utmo st importance in this field. They only manner in which the lofty goals of the gr een rating systems and the environmental construction movement will be met is through research aimed at enhancing their multitiered success.

PAGE 163

146 APPENDIX A POINTS-BASED PROGRAM DATA The following is the information that st emmed from the analysis of each pointsbased rating system for this study. The source of the majority of this information was the rating system documentation, and other info rmation came from personal correspondences with various employees of the companies that administer the rating systems. As described in the methodology chapte r, the information from the point worksheets was normalized over the following ten categories: Bonus/Innovaion, Builder Operations, Energy Efficiency, Homeowne r Education/O&M, Indoor Environmental Quality, Preexisting Standards/Codes, Res ource/Material Efficiency, Site Planning, Water Efficiency, Unique. Additionally, the da ta for the point worksheets and certified homes was also normalized according to geograp hic region. Please refer to Chapter 3 for more information. However, the information contained herein is the verbatim information that can be found on each programs builder guidelines. Please not that any entry that states N/D means that there was no data available.

PAGE 164

147 Arlington Green Home Choice Table A-1: Arlington Green Home Choice Co re Characteristics, Point Structure and Certified Home Data Location State Virginia Name of Organization Arlington County Name of Program Arlington Green Home Choice Organization Type Local Government Date Founded 2003 Verification Procedure(s) Inspection Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged None, unless they require a HERS rating from the organization Optional Programs Energy Star (90 Points in Energy (Maximum Allowed in Section)) Optional Programs HVAC Sized Close to Manual J Standards (5 Points in Energy Efficient Building Envelope) Required Programs IECC 2000 Original Rating Categories Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Prerequisite 1 0 1 0 1 Prerequisite 2 0 1 0 1 Site Planning 65 22 0 0 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Prerequisite 0 1 0 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Air Sealing 43 19 0 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Insulation 42 23 0 Energy Efficient Building Envel ope & Systems Windows 24 7 0 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & System s Heating & Cooling Equipment 48 14 0 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Syst ems Ductwork & Air Handler 60 12 0 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Total 217 76 75 0 Energy Efficient Appliances & Lighting 17 8 0 0 Resource Efficient Design 33 13 0 0 Resource Efficient Building Materials Recycled & Natural Content Materials 11 10 0 Resource Efficient Building Materials Advanced Manufacturing Products 62 16 0 Resource Efficient Building Materials Durability 18 16 0 Resource Efficient Building Materials Total 91 42 0 0 Waste Management Waste Management Practices 15 4 0 Waste Management Recycle Construction Waste 15 7 0 Waste Management Total 30 11 0 0 Indoor Air Quality Combustion Safety 16 6 0 Indoor Air Quality Moisture Control 13 7 0 Indoor Air Quality Ventilation 26 12 0 Indoor Air Quality Materials 18 13 0 Indoor Air Quality Total 73 38 0 0 Water Indoor 16 3 0 0 Water Outdoor 7 4 0 0 Homebuyer Education 4 3 0 0 Builder Operations 4 2 0 0 Bonus Points 75 7 0 0 GRAND TOTAL 632 231 75 2

PAGE 165

148 Table A-1. Continued Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified 175 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2003 0 2004 2 2005 2 2006 1 (YTD) GRAND TOTAL 5 Notes: Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems has a Maximum Point Limit of 90; Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value)

PAGE 166

149 Aspen Efficient Building Program Table A-2: Aspen Efficient Building Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Colorado Name of Organization City of Aspen Name of Program Aspen Efficient Building Program Organization Type Local Government Date Founded 2003 Verification Procedure(s) Inspection Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Mandatory Fees Charged None Mandatory Program Optional Programs Energy Star House (5 Poin ts in Energy Measures) Optional Programs HVAC Sized with Manual J (3 Points in Energy Measures) Required Programs None Original Rating Categories Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Construction Debris Recycling 10 5 None Specified 4 Use of Resource Efficient Materials 74 10 None Specified 0 Land Use & Water Conservation 68 10 None Specified 0 Framing & Materials 288 33 None Specified 0 Energy Measures 47 14 None Specified 2 Plumbing 5 2 None Specified 0 Electrical 26 5 None Specified 0 Insulation 10 4 None Specified 0 HVAC 39 12 None Specified 0 Solar 115 10 None Specified 0 Indoor Air Quality 62 16 None Specified 8 Innovation Points 43 4 None Specified 0 GRAND TOTAL 787 125 None Specified 14 Levels of CertificationPoints Needed Certified Smallest home = 50 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2003 N/D 2004 N/D 2005 N/D 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL No Data Notes: Mandatory Items Count Both for Poin ts and Line Items; Points needed to certify depends on home size in square footage

PAGE 167

150 Austin Energy's Green Building Program Table A-3: Austin Energys Green Build ing Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Texas Name of Organization City of Austin/Austin Energy Name of Program Austin Energy's Green Building Program Organization Type Local Utility Company Date Founded 1991 Verification Procedure(s) Third Party Testing Monetary or Procedural Incentives Energy Rebates for Specific Line Items Membership Voluntary Fees Charged None, Unless outside of Austin Energy service area $200/home Optional Programs None Required Programs HVAC Sized via Manual J Required Programs IECC 2000 Standards must be met Original Rating Categories Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Basic Requirements for all Ratings 0 11 None Specified 11 Energy Design 44 15 None Specified 1 Energy Thermal Envelope 25 11 None Specified 0 Energy Heating, Cooling, Water Heating 33 15 None Specified 0 Energy Power, Lighting, Appliances 14 6 None Specified 0 Energy Additions 0 0 None Specified 0 Energy Totals 116 47 None Specified 1 Testing: Less air leakage through envelope & ducts, better air flow, control of combustion gases 14 4 None Specified 4 Materials Design & Structure 27 8 None Specified 0 Materials Finishes 17 8 None Specified 0 Materials Efficient Use and Recycling 9 7 None Specified 0 Materials Additions 0 0 None Specified 0 Materials Totals 53 23 None Specified 0 Water Indoor 11 6 None Specified 0 Water Outdoor 24 10 None Specified 0 Water Additions 0 0 None Specified 0 Water Totals 35 16 None Specified 0 Health & Safety Mold, Mites & Fibers 8 3 None Specified 0 Health & Safety Humidity & Ventilation: Mechanical14 5 None Specified 0 Health & Safety Chemicals 15 6 None Specified 0 Health & Safety Combustion Gases 7 3 None Specified 0 Health & Safety Integrated Pest Management 8 5 None Specified 0 Health & Safety Age-in-Place, Ba th Safety 3 3 None Specified 0 Health & Safety Additions 0 0 None Specified 0 Health & Safety Totals 55 25 None Specified 0 Community Dwelling Unit 14 5 None Specified 0 Community Site or Lot 18 6 None Specified 0 Community Neighborhood 11 6 None Specified 0 Community Additions 0 0 None Specified 0 Community Totals 43 17 None Specified 0

PAGE 168

151 Table A-3. Continued Original Rating Categories Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items GRAND TOTAL 316 143 None Specified 16 Levels of Certification Points Needed 1 Star 40 2 Star 60 3 Star 90 4 Star 130 5 Star 190 Years in ExistenceCertified Homes 1992 N/D 1993 N/D 1994 14 1995 14 1996 471 1997 236 1998 197 1999 517 2000 661 2001 343 2002 681 2003 587 2004 822 2005 1118 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 5661 Notes: Mandatory Items Count Both for Points and Line Items; Testing only mandatory if the home is a 4 or 5 star, and 3 star only has one mandatory test

PAGE 169

152 Boulder Green Points Program Table A-4: Boulder Green Points Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Colorado Name of Organization City of Boulder Name of Program Boulder Green Points Program Organization Type Local Government Date Founded 1997 Verification Procedure(s) Inspection for Certain Points Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Mandatory if over 500 Square Feet in Area Fees Charged None Mandatory Program Optional Programs None Required Programs None Rating Sections Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Construction/Demolition/Use of Recycled Materials 35 10 None Specified 0 Land Use & Water Conservation 22 13 None Specified 0 Framing 34 14 None Specified 0 Plumbing 5 2 None Specified 0 Electrical 15 12 None Specified 0 Windows & Insulation 34 9 None Specified 0 HVAC 52 14 None Specified 0 Solar 79 12 None Specified 0 Indoor Air Quality 53 16 None Specified 0 Innovation Points 10 1 None Specified 0 Energy Code Measures 30 3 None Specified 0 GRAND TOTAL 369 106 None Specified 0 Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified Smallest home = 50 Years in Existence Certified Homes 1997 N/D 1998 N/D 1999 N/D 2000 N/D 2001 N/D 2002 N/D 2003 N/D 2004 N/D 2005 N/D 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL No Data Note: Points needed to certify depends on home size in square footage

PAGE 170

153 Build San Antonio Green Table A-5: Build San Antonio Green Co re Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Texas Name of Organization Metropolitan Partnership for Energy/G reater San Antonio Builders Assoc. Name of Program Build San Antonio Green Organization Type Alliance Date Founded 2004 Verification Procedure(s) 3rd Party Testing Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged Annual: $100 for members, $400 for non-members to participate in the program Optional Programs Energy Star Home (7 Points in Energy Building Envelope) Optional Programs Level 1 QuikQual: Prescriptive Requirements to Achieve Level 1 Certification Required Programs HVAC Must Be Sized According to Manual J Calculations Rating Sections Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Site Prerequisites 0 10 10 Site Location and Subdivision 21 5 0 Site Neighborhood Design 34 8 0 Site Individual Site Design 26 5 0 Site Tree Preservation Ordinance Status 19 5 0 Site Additional Tree Protection 22 4 0 Site Tree Stand Delineation Option 10 2 0 Site Site Drainage and Stormwater Considerations 28 6 0 Site Streetscape 21 4 0 Site Utility Placement 22 6 0 Site Infill or Replace Ex isting House Condition 36 5 0 Site Recycling/Construction Waste Management 24 3 0 Site Best Management Practices 41 9 0 Site Total 304 72 40/62/84 10 Energy Prerequisites 0 8 8 Energy Site 6 2 0 Energy Renewable Energy 54 11 0 Energy Building Envelope (Ener gy Scoring Document) 14 7 0 Energy Building Envelope (Other) 28 9 0 Energy Radiant Barrier and Other Construction Practices11 6 0 Energy Spray Insulation 4 4 0 Energy Appliances 15 8 0 Energy Lighting 15 6 0 Energy HVAC 65 18 0 Energy Total 212 79 35/54/73 8 Materials Roof Structure and Surface 5.82 19 0 Materials Exterior Wall Structure 2.4 20 0 Materials Exterior Wall Surface & Coating 0.52 12 0 Materials Interior Walls 1.26 10 0

PAGE 171

154 Table A-5. Continued Rating Sections Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Materials Insulation 2.73 17 0 Materials Flooring 0.96 22 0 Materials Totals 16.19 100 6.3/8/10 0 Water Prerequisites 0 2 2 Water Indoor Considerations 70 22 0 Water Outdoor Considerations 57 18 0 Water Total 127 42 40/75/109 2 Health Prerequisites 0 6 0 Health Flooring and Sub-Flooring 20 6 0 Health Sheet Board Materials 9 2 0 Health Adhesives 5 3 0 Health Interior Paints 12 3 0 Health Cooling and Air Treatment 27 6 0 Health Ventilation 7 3 0 Health Wall & Ceiling Insulation 2 1 0 Health Installed Vacuum System 3 1 0 Health Pest Management 9 2 0 Health Combustion Gas and Carbon Monoxide 9 3 0 Health Water Condensation Control 2 1 0 Health Totals 105 37 30/42/52 0 GRAND TOTAL 764.19 330 151.3/241/328 20 Levels of Certification Points Needed Level 1 151.3 Level 2 241 Level 3 328 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2004 0 2005 3 2006 0 GRAND TOTAL 3 Notes: Material points have decimals because of the calculations involved to derive their point value; Minimum Points shows the number needed for Level 1/Level 2/Lev el 3 Certification; Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value)

PAGE 172

155 Built Green Colorado Table A-6: Built Green Colorado Core Characte ristics, Points Worksheet Configuration and Certified Home Data Location Colorado Name of Organization HBA of Metro Denver Name of Program Built Green Colorado Organization Type Home Builders Association Date Founded 1995 Verification Procedure(s) Third Party Energy Testing & Random Inspections Done on 5% of Homes Incentives Offered None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged Annual: $150/$625 (HBA Members/HBA Nonmembers). Fees Charged (Cont'd) Per Home: $45/$100 (without yard sign/with yard sign). Optional Programs Tier I Manual J (6 Points) Optional Programs ALA Health House (13 Points) Required Programs Energy Program: HERS Rating of 82 Points OR Exceed IECC 2003 by 10% OR Meet Energy Star Required Programs Energy Program: Tier II must have a HERS rating of 86; Tier III must have a HERS rating of 88 Required Programs HVAC Efficiency: Tier II & III mu st conform to ACCA Manual J Required Programs Ventilation: Tier II & III must conform to ASHRAE 62.2 Original Rating Categories Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Minimum Energy Efficiency Rating 5 3 1 Site Protection 12 3 0 Energy Efficiency: Site Design & Construction 18 3 0 Energy Efficiency: Renewable Energy 50 6 0 Energy Efficiency: Foundation Systems 27 6 0 Energy Efficiency: Thermal Envelope 65 15 0 Energy Efficiency: Windows and Doors 13 4 0 Energy Efficiency: Low Energy Cooling Strategies 17 4 0 Energy Efficiency: Mechanical Heating & Cooling Systems86 12 1 1 Energy Efficiency: HVAC Di stribution Systems 37 7 2 1 Energy Efficiency: Water Heating 39 9 0 Energy Efficiency: Appliances 16 6 0 Energy Efficiency: Lighting 17 4 1 1 Energy Efficiency: Totals 385 76 4 3 Health & Safety: Improved Indoor Air Quality 124 29 1 1 Health & Safety: Moisture Management 22 6 2 1 Health & Safety: Totals 146 35 3 2 Material Resource Efficiency: Foundation 6 4 0 Material Resource Efficiency: Framing 78 21 1 1 Material Resource Efficiency: Subfloor 4 2 0 Material Resource Efficiency: Roofing 21 5 0 Material Resource Efficiency: Insulation 4 3 0 Material Resource Efficiency: Windows & Doors 7 4 0 Material Resource Efficiency: Exterior Wall Finishes 23 8 1 1

PAGE 173

156 Table A-6. Continued Original Rating Categories Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Material Resource Efficiency: Interior Finish Floor 28 8 0 Material Resource Efficiency: Cabinetry & Trim 20 5 0 Material Resource Efficiency: Ma terial Reduction & Reuse26 5 0 Material Resource Effici ency: Construction Waste Reduction & Recycling 9 2 0 Material Resource Efficiency: Totals 226 67 2 2 Resource Conservation: Water 93 25 1 1 GRAND TOTAL 867 209 10 9 Levels of Certification Points Needed Tier I 70 Tier II 184 Tier III 259 Years in Existence Certified Homes 1995 N/D 1996 216 1997 1,169 1998 1,200 1999 1,535 2000 2,599 2001 3,781 2002 3,994 2003 4,942 2004 5,742 2005 4771 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 29,949 Note: Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value)

PAGE 174

157 Built Green Jefferson County Table A-7: Built Green Jefferson County Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Washington Name of Organization Jefferson County Home Builders Association Name of Program Built Green Jefferson County Organization Type Home Builders Association Date Founded 2005 Verification Procedure(s) Self-Certify, Third-Party Op tions (for more points) Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged $50/House Optional Programs Energy Star Home (5 Poin ts in Energy Efficiency) Optional Programs ALA Health House (8 Points in Health & Indoor Air Quality) Required Programs Local Codes: Energy, Ventila tion, Water Use and Stormwater Rating Sections Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Codes & Regulations 0 6 None Specified6 Site & Water Proximity 20 1 None Specified0 Site & Water Overall 8 2 None Specified0 Site & Water Protect Site's Natural Features 19 5 None Specified0 Site & Water Protect Natural Processes On-Site 24 8 None Specified0 Site & Water Impervious Surfaces 30 4 None Specified0 Site & Water Eliminate Water Pollutants 26 17 None Specified2 Site & Water Outdoor Water Conservation 13 5 None Specified0 Site & Water Totals 140 42 None Specified 2 Energy Efficiency Envelope 111 20 None Specified0 Energy Efficiency Heating & Cooling 66 16 None Specified1 Energy Efficiency Water Heating 26 11 None Specified2 Energy Efficiency Appliances 9 5 None Specified0 Energy Efficiency Natural Day Lighting 6 4 None Specified0 Energy Efficiency Efficient Lighting 17 7 None Specified0 Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy Systems/Methods 48 4 None Specified0 Energy Efficiency Totals 283 67 None Specified 3 Health & Indoor Air Quality Overall 13 3 None Specified0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Jobsite Operations 14 7 None Specified0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Nontoxic Material Selection 33 12 None Specified0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Moisture Control 13 10 None Specified1 Health & Indoor Air Quality Air Distribution, Ventilation & Filtration15 7 None Specified0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Emissions 17 4 None Specified0 Health & Indoor Air Quality HVAC Equipment 29 10 None Specified1 Health & Indoor Air Quality Electromagnetic Fields 6 3 None Specified0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Totals 140 56 None Specified 2 Materials & Design Efficiency Limit Size of Home 60 4 None Specified0 Materials & Design Efficiency Jobsite Operations (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) 46 27 None Specified2 Materials & Design Efficiency Desi gn Alternatives 28 10 None Specified0 Materials & Design Efficiency Design & Material Selection 192 51 None Specified0

PAGE 175

158 Table A-7. Continued Rating Sections Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Materials & Design Efficiency Totals 326 92 None Specified 2 Innovation & Additional Green Action 0 0 None Specified0 GRAND TOTAL 889 263 None Specified 15 Levels of Certification Points Needed One Leaf 150 Two Leaves 225 Three Leaves 300 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2005 N/D 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL No Data Note: Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value

PAGE 176

159 Built Green King/Snohomish Counties Table A-8: Build Green King/Snohomish Counties Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Washington Name of Organization Master Builders Association of King/Snohomish Counties Name of Program Built Green King/Snohomish Counties Organization Type Home Builders Association Date Founded 2000 Verification Procedure(s) Self-Certification Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged Annual: Member $300; Nonmember $1250. Fees Charged (Cont'd) Per Home: Member $50 (to $1000 max/year); Nonmember $300 (to $6000 max/year) Optional Programs ALA Health House Certified (15 Points in Health & IAQ) Required Programs Energy Star Home (4 & 5 Star) Required Programs Local Codes: Energy, Ventilati on, Water Use and Stormwater Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Build to Green Codes/Regulations 0 4 4 Site & Water Site Protection 93 44 0 Site & Water Design Alternatives 24 5 0 Site & Water Totals 117 49 6 0 Energy Efficiency Envelope 96 18 0 Energy Efficiency Heating/Cooling 21 9 0 Energy Efficiency Water Heating 6 3 0 Energy Efficiency Lighting 6 4 0 Energy Efficiency Efficiency Design 2 1 0 Energy Efficiency Alte rnative Systems 15 2 0 Energy Efficiency Totals 146 37 6 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Overall 25 3 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Jobsite Operations 17 8 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Layout & Material Selection 41 15 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Moisture Control 9 8 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Air Distribution & Filtration 21 9 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality HVAC Equipment 29 10 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Totals 142 53 6 0 Materials Efficiency Overall 35 2 0 Materials Efficiency Jo bsite Operations 59 28 1 Materials Efficiency Design & Material Selection 98 45 0 Materials Efficiency Totals 192 75 6 1 Promote Environmentally Friendly Homeowner O&M Homeowner Kit 0 1 1 Promote Environmentally Friendly Homeowner O&M Water Protection 67 18 0 Promote Environmentally Friendly Homeowner O&M Energy 36 19 0 Promote Environmentally Friendly Homeowner O&M Health & IAQ 3 3 0 Promote Environmentally Friendly Homeowner O&M Recycling 4 2 0 Promote Environmentally Friendly Homeowner O&M Totals 110 43 6 1 GRAND TOTAL 707 261 30 6

PAGE 177

160 Table A-8. Continued Levels of Certification Points Needed 1 Star 25 2 Star 100 3 Star 180 4 Star 250 5 Star 350 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2000 36 2001 1009 2002 1491 2003 921 2004 1653 2005 942 2006 160 GRAND TOTAL 6212 Note: Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value)

PAGE 178

161 Built Green Kitsap County Table A-9: Built Green Kitsap County Co re Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Washington Name of Organization Kitsap County HBA Name of Program Built Green Kitsap Organization Type Home Builders Association Date Founded 1997 Verification Procedure(s) Self-Certified Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged Annual: $100. Per Home: $50. Optional Programs None Required Programs Local Codes: Energy, Ventila tion, Water Use and Stormwater Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Build to Green Codes/Regulations 0 4 4 Treat Site Appropriately Site Protection 18 12 0 Treat Site Appropriately Site Design 22 9 0 Treat Site Appropriately Totals 40 25 3 4 Reduce/Reuse/Recycle Reduce 19 12 0 Reduce/Reuse/Recycle Reuse 8 7 0 Reduce/Reuse/Recycle Recycle 15 7 0 Reduce/Reuse/Recycle Totals 42 26 3 0 Purchase Resource-Efficient Products 31 18 3 0 Maximize Energy Efficiency 47 16 3 0 Promote Good Air Quality & Health 58 22 3 0 Environmental Responsibility/Hazardous Waste9 6 3 0 Promote Responsible Operation & Maintenance16 10 3 1 GRAND TOTAL 243 127 21 9 Levels of Certification Points Needed 1-Star Level 10 2-Star Level 40 3-Star Level 70 Years in Existence Certified Homes 1997 N/D 1998 N/D 1999 N/D 2000 N/D 2001 N/D 2002 N/D 2003 N/D 2004 N/D 2005 N/D 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 800 Note: Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value)

PAGE 179

162 Built Green Olympia Table A-10: Built Green Olympia Core Charac teristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Washington Name of Organization Olympia Master Builders Association Name of Program Built Green Olympia Organization Type Home Builders Association Date Founded 2004 Verification Procedure(s) Self-Certify Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged $50/$250 Builders Certification (member/nonmember). Per Home: $50 to Max of $3000/year Optional Programs Energy Star Home (10 Poin ts in Energy Efficiency) Optional Programs ALA Health House (15 Points in Health & Indoor Air Quality) Required Programs Local Codes: Energy, Ventilati on, Water Use and Stormwater Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Codes & Regulations 0 6 None Specified6 Site & Water Site Protection (Protect Features, Processes, Impervious Surf, Pollutants) 119 39 None Specified0 Site & Water Design Alternatives 24 5 None Specified0 Site & Water Totals 143 44 None Specified 0 Energy Efficiency Envelope 105 19 None Specified0 Energy Efficiency Heating & Cooling 22 9 None Specified1 Energy Efficiency Water Heating 8 5 None Specified1 Energy Efficiency Lighting 6 4 None Specified0 Energy Efficiency Efficient Design 2 1 None Specified0 Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy Systems/Methods 19 5 None Specified0 Energy Efficiency Totals 162 43 None Specified 2 Health & Indoor Air Quality Overall 25 3 None Specified0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Jobsite Operations 17 8 None Specified0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Layout & Material Selection 41 15 None Specified0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Moisture Control 11 9 None Specified0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Air Distribution, Ventilation & Filtration 21 9 None Specified0 Health & Indoor Air Quality HVAC Equipment 29 10 None Specified0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Totals 144 54 None Specified 0 Materials Efficiency Overall 25 1 None Specified0 Materials & Design Efficiency Jo bsite Operations (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) 59 28 None Specified1 Materials & Design Efficiency Design & Material Selection 102 47 None Specified0 Materials & Design Efficiency Totals 186 76 None Specified 1 Promote Environmentally Friendly Operations & Maintenance Homeowners Kit 0 1 None Specified1 Promote Environmentally Friendly Operations & Maintenance Water Protection 77 18 None Specified0 Promote Environmentally Friendly Operations & Maintenance Energy 46 22 None Specified0

PAGE 180

163 Table A-10. Continued Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Promote Environmentally Friendly Operations & Maintenance Health & IAQ 6 4 None Specified0 Promote Environmentally Friendly Operations & Maintenance Recycling 4 2 None Specified0 Promote Environmentally Friendly Operations & Maintenance Totals 133 47 None Specified 1 Innovation & Additional Green Action 0 0 None Specified0 GRAND TOTAL 768 270 None Specified 10 Levels of Certification Points Needed One Star 25 Points Two Stars 100 Points Three Stars 180 Points Years in Existence Certified Homes 2004 0 2005 7 2006 1 GRAND TOTAL 8 Note: Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value)

PAGE 181

164 Built Green Pierce County Table A-11: Built Green Pierce County Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Washington Name of Organization Master Builders Association of Pierce County Name of Program Built Green Pierce County Organization Type Home Builders Association Date Founded 2003 Verification Procedure(s) Self-Certification Monetary or Procedural Incentives Local power company rebates Membership Voluntary Fees Charged Annual: Member $300; Nonmember $1250. Fees Charged (Cont'd) Per Home: Member $50 (to $1000 max/year); Nonmember $300 (to $6000 max/year) Optional Programs Energy Star Home (10 Poin ts in Energy Efficiency) Required Programs Local Codes: Energy, Ventilati on, Water Use and Stormwater Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Build to Green Codes/Regulations 0 4 4 Site & Water Site Protection 127 39 0 Site & Water Design Alternatives 12 5 0 Site & Water Water Protection 55 17 0 Site & Water Totals 194 61 5/10/15 0 Energy Efficiency Overall 20 3 0 Energy Efficiency Envelope 90 22 0 Energy Efficiency Heating/Cooling 27 14 0 Energy Efficiency Water Heating 16 10 0 Energy Efficiency Appliances 7 6 0 Energy Efficiency Lighting 27 11 1 Energy Efficiency Totals 187 66 5/10/15 1 Health & Indoor Air Quality Overall 5 1 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Jobsite Operations 21 9 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Layout & Material Selection44 19 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Moisture Control 9 8 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Air Distribution & Filtration 21 8 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality HVAC Equipment 40 10 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Totals 140 55 5/10/15 0 Materials Efficiency Overall 25 1 0 Materials Efficiency Jo bsite Operations 45 27 2 Materials Efficiency Design & Material Selection 120 48 0 Materials Efficiency Totals 190 76 5/10/15 2 Promote Environmentally Friendly Homeowner O&M Homeowner Kit 0 1 1 GRAND TOTAL 711 263 20/40/60 8

PAGE 182

165 Table A-11. Continued Levels of Certification Points Needed 1 Star 30 2 Star 110 3 Star 220 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2003 0 2004 50 2005 400 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 450 Notes: Mandatory Items Only Count as Li ne Items (No Point Value); Minimum Points Requirement is for 1 Star/2 Star/3 Star

PAGE 183

166 Built Green Whatcom County Table A-12: Built Green Whatcom County Co re Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Washington Name of Organization HBA of Whatcom County Name of Program Built Green Whatcom County Organization Type Home Builders Association Date Founded 2004 Verification Procedure(s) Self (unless energy star) Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged $250/$350 Builders Certification (member/nonmember). Per Home: $100 Optional Programs Energy Star Home (10 Poin ts in Energy Efficiency) Optional Programs ALA Health House (5 Points in Health & Indoor Air Quality) Required Programs Local Codes: Energy, Ventilati on, Water Use and Stormwater Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Build to Green Codes/Regulations 0 4 4 Built Green Team 10 1 5/6/10 0 Site & Water Site Protection 118 44 8 Site & Water Design Alternatives 0 0 0 Site & Water Water Protection 54 21 0 Site & Water Innovation 10 1 0 Site & Water Totals 182 66 5/6/10 8 Energy Efficiency Overall 20 3 0 Energy Efficiency Envelope 93 21 0 Energy Efficiency Heating/Cooling 44 16 0 Energy Efficiency Water Heating 33 12 0 Energy Efficiency Appliances 11 6 0 Energy Efficiency Lighting 18 10 1 Energy Efficiency Innovation 10 1 0 Energy Efficiency Totals 229 69 5/6/10 1 Health & Indoor Air Quality Overall 5 11 10 Health & Indoor Air Quality Jobsite Operations 26 11 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Layout & Material Selection46 19 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Moisture Control 9 3 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Air Distribution & Filtration 17 7 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality HVAC Equipment 25 6 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Innovation 10 1 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Totals 138 58 5/6/10 10 Materials Efficiency Overall 25 3 2 Materials Efficiency Jo bsite Operations 45 24 0 Materials Efficiency Design & Material Selection 113 52 0 Materials Efficiency Innovation 10 1 0 Materials Efficiency Totals 193 80 5/6/10 2 Promote Environmentally Friendly Homeowner O&M Homeowner Kit 0 1 1

PAGE 184

167 Table A-12. Continued Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items GRAND TOTAL 752 279 25/30/50 26 Levels of Certification Points Needed 1 Star 40 2 Star 100 3 Star 160 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2004 0 2005 15 2006 0 GRAND TOTAL 15 Notes: Mandatory Items Only Count as Li ne Items (No Point Value); Minimum Points Requirement is for 1 Star/2 Star/3 Star

PAGE 185

168 Earth Advantage Table A-13: Earth Advantage Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Oregon Name of Organization Earth Advantage Name of Program Earth Advantage Organization Type Non-Profit Organization Date Founded 1999 Verification Procedure(s) 3rd Party Required, Inspections Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged Annual: $250. Per House: $450. Optional Programs Energy Star Certain points become automatic Required Programs None Original Rating Category Points Possible Line ItemsMinimum Points Mandatory Items Site Planning 88 10 None Specified 0 Resource Efficient Design 32 6 None Specified 0 Waste Management 21 2 None Specified 0 Building Envelope & Systems Foundati on Systems 24 6 None Specified 0 Building Envelope & Systems Wall Framing & Insulation 76 10 None Specified 0 Building Envelope & Systems Attic Framing & Insulation 31 5 None Specified 0 Building Envelope & Systems Floor Framing & Insulation 43 4 None Specified 1 Building Envelope & Systems Shell Resource Efficient Measures87 9 None Specified 0 Building Envelope & Systems Infiltration/Air Sealing 33 3 None Specified 1 Building Envelope & Systems Exterior Surfaces 52 8 None Specified 0 Building Envelope & Systems Roofing 49 7 None Specified 0 Building Envelope & Systems Windows 29 7 None Specified 1 Building Envelope & Systems Totals 424 59 None Specified 3 HVAC Systems Fireplace 10 2 None Specified 0 HVAC Systems Equipment 61 5 None Specified 0 HVAC Systems Ductwork 32 6 None Specified 3 HVAC Systems Additional Ductwork Measures 35 4 None Specified 0 HVAC Systems Totals 138 17 None Specified 3 Ventilation 30 3 None Specified 1 Lighting, Appliances and Water Heat ing Lighting 66 12 None Specified 1 Lighting, Appliances and Water Heati ng Appliances 14 3 None Specified 1 Lighting, Appliances and Water Heating Water Heating 24 7 None Specified 1 Lighting, Appliances and Water He ating Additional Water Heating Measures 21 2 None Specified 0 Lighting, Appliances and Water Heating Totals 125 24 None Specified 3 Indoor Air Quality Project Wide Air Qu ality Measures 41 11 None Specified 1 Indoor Air Quality Interior Surfac e Coatings 42 6 None Specified 1 Indoor Air Quality Totals 83 17 None Specified 2 Resource Efficient Building Materials Cabinets 62 7 None Specified 0 Resource Efficient Building Materials Countertops 19 5 None Specified 0 Resource Efficient Building Materials Casework 27 3 None Specified 0

PAGE 186

169 Table A-13. Continued Original Rating Category Points Possible Line ItemsMinimum Points Mandatory Items Resource Efficient Building Materials Flooring 132 13 None Specified 0 Resource Efficient Building Materials Totals 240 28 None Specified 0 Water Efficiency and Landscaping Indoor Water 46 9 None Specified 0 Water Efficiency and Landscaping Outdoor Water and Landscaping 76 17 None Specified 0 Water Efficiency and Landscaping Totals 122 26 None Specified 0 Bonus & Innovative New Measures 9 3 None Specified 0 GRAND TOTAL 1312 195 None Specified 12 Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified 200 Gold In Development Platinum In Development Years in Existence Certified Homes 1999 0 2000 14 2001 46 2002 445 2003 911 2004 1113 2005 1372 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 3901 Note: Mandatory Items Count Both for Points an d Line Items; 50 Points Required from each of their own four sustainabilit y categories, reaches acro ss all shown categories

PAGE 187

170 EarthCraft House Table A-14: EarthCraft H ouse Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Georgia Name of Organization Southface Energy Institute/Greater Atlanta HBA Name of Program EarthCraft House Organization Type Non-Profit Corporation/Alliance Date Founded 1999 Verification Procedure(s) Inspection Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged $0.10/sqft; $250 Final Inspection Also Optional Programs ALA Health House (5 Points in Bonus) Optional Programs Energy Star Home Required Programs Size HVAC According to Manual J Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Site Planning 42 14 0 1 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Air Sealing 45 29 20 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Insulation 46 33 7 Energy Efficient Building En velope & Systems Windows 29 11 1 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Heating & Cooling Equipment 36 13 1 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Ductwork & Air Handler 40 17 3 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Total 196 103 75 32 Energy Efficient Appliances & Lighting 12 7 0 0 Resource Efficient Design 31 13 0 0 Resource Efficient Building Materials Recycled & Natural Content Materials 22 11 0 Resource Efficient Building Materials Advanced Manufacturing Products 33 14 0 Resource Efficient Building Materials Durability 21 15 0 Resource Efficient Building Materials Total 76 40 0 0 Waste Management Waste Management Practices 15 5 1 Waste Management Recycle Construction Waste 15 7 0 Waste Management Total 30 12 0 1 Indoor Air Quality Combustion Safety 32 12 2 Indoor Air Quality Moisture Control 15 8 0 Indoor Air Quality Ventilation 36 16 1 Indoor Air Quality Materials 23 16 1 Indoor Air Quality Total 106 52 0 4 Water Indoor 32 16 0 2 Water Outdoor 36 11 0 0 Homebuyer Education 21 7 0 0 Builder Operations 13 6 0 1 Bonus Points 77 10 0 0 GRAND TOTAL 672 291 75 41

PAGE 188

171 Table A-14. Continued Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified 150 Years in Existence Certified Homes 1999 1 2000 71 2001 360 2002 362 2003 518 2004 652 2005 800 2006 210 GRAND TOTAL 2974 Note: Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value); Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems has a Maximum Point Limit of 90; 2005 & 2006 Certified Home Data is Estimated

PAGE 189

172 Florida Green Home Destination Table A-15: Florida Green Ho me Designation Core Characteri stics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Florida Name of Organization Florida Green Building Coalition Inc. Name of Program Florida Green Home Destination Organization Type Non-Profit Corporation/Alliance Date Founded 2001 Verification Procedure(s) Certification Agent Monetary or Procedural Incentives Fast track permitting (depends on municipality) Membership Voluntary Fees Charged Member: $50/home to 10, then $35/home; Nonmember: $75/home Optional Programs Meet Florida Energy Code (100 Points in Energy (Building Envelope/Systems)) Required Programs None Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Max. Allowed Mandatory Items Prerequisite 1: Swimming Pool/Spa 0 5 1 Prerequisite 2: Waterfront Considerations 0 4 1 Energy (Building Envelope/Systems) 169 18 120 150 0 In Min Points Energy (Appliances, Lights, Amenities) 29 13 10 25 0 In Min Points Energy Totals 198 31 130 175 0 Water Fixtures 16 9 0 In Min Points Water Greywater Reuse 5 3 0 In Min Points Water Rainwater Harvesting 3 2 0 In Min Points Water Reclaimed Water Use 8 4 0 In Min Points Water Installed Landscape 22 10 0 In Min Points Water Installed Irrigation 7 6 0 In Min Points Water Total 61 34 15 40 0 Site Lot Choice 12 5 0 In Min Points Site Native Tree & Plant Preservation 17 5 0 In Min Points Site On-site Use of Cleared Materials 3 2 0 In Min Points Site Erosion Control/Topsoil Preservation 7 5 0 In Min Points Site Drainage/Retention 8 3 0 In Min Points Site Total 47 20 10 30 0 Health Combustion 10 7 0 In Min Points Health Moisture Control 9 7 0 In Min Points Health Ventilation 20 16 0 In Min Points Health Source Control 16 10 0 In Min Points Health Cleanability 5 4 0 In Min Points Health Universal Design 4 2 0 In Min Points Health Total 64 46 10 30 0 Materials Structure 12 7 0 In Min Points Materials Sub-Assembly, Partitions, Trim 7 6 0 In Min Points Materials Finishes 4 4 0 In Min Points Materials Durability 12 11 0 In Min Points Materials Waste Management 12 4 0 In Min Points Materials Total 47 32 10 45 0

PAGE 190

173 Table A-15. Continued Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Max. Allowed Mandatory Items Disaster Mitigation Hurricane 20 10 0 In Min Points Disaster Mitigation Flood 3 4 0 In Min Points Disaster Mitigation Wild Fire 3 3 0 In Min Points Disaster Mitigation Termites 10 12 0 In Min Points Disaster Mitigation Termite Resistant Structure 10 4 0 In Min Points Disaster Mitigation Total 46 33 5 30 0 General Small house credit 50 1 0 In Min Points General Renewable Power Generation 20 1 0 In Min Points General Reconfigurability 6 3 0 In Min Points General FGBC Certified Land Development 14 1 0 In Min Points General Other 18 5 0 In Min Points General Total 108 11 0 50 0 GRAND TOTAL 571 216 180 400 2 Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified 200 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2001 2 2002 3 2003 10 2004 65 2005 171 2006 65 GRAND TOTAL 316 Note: Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value); minimum points can be forgiven in certain circumstances

PAGE 191

174 Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. Table A-16: Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Michigan Name of Organization Home & Building Association of Grand Rapids, Michigan Name of Program Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. Organization Type Home Builders Association Date Founded 2001 Verification Procedure(s) Some 3rd Party Certification Required Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged Annual: $175; Per Home: $35 Optional Programs Life Cycle Assessment for Materials (8 Points in Lot Design, Preparation & Development) Required Programs IECC 2004, Energy Star, or local ME C (whichever is more stringent) Required Programs Size HVAC via Manual J Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Lot Design, Preparation & Development Select the Site 9 4 0 Lot Design, Preparation & Development Identify Goals with Your Team 6 2 0 Lot Design, Preparation & Development Design the Site 43 24 0 Lot Design, Preparation & Development Develop the Site 16 10 0 Lot Design, Preparation & Development Innovative Options 6 1 0 Lot Design, Preparation & Development Totals 80 41 8/10/12 0 Resource Efficiency Reduce Quantity of Materials & Waste 63 10 0 Resource Efficiency Enhance Durability & Reduce Maintenance 82 12 0 Resource Efficiency Reuse Materials 17 3 0 Resource Efficiency Use Recycle Content Material 1 1 0 Resource Efficiency Recycle Waste Materials During Construction 20 3 0 Resource Efficiency Use Renewable Materials 8 2 0 Resource Efficiency Use Re source Efficient Materials 3 1 0 Resource Efficiency Innovative Options 13 2 0 Resource Efficiency Totals 207 34 44/60/77 0 Energy Efficiency Implement Int egrated Energy Efficient Design 0 3 3 Energy Efficiency Pe rformance Innovations 100 3 0 Energy Efficiency Prescriptive Innovations 284 66 0 Energy Efficiency Totals 384 72 37/62/100 3 Indoor/Outdoor Water Use Indoor/Outdoor Water Use 93 16 0 Indoor/Outdoor Water Use Innovative Options 18 3 0 Indoor/Outdoor Water Use Totals 111 19 32/54/72 0 Indoor Environmental Quality Minimize Potential Sources of Pollutants 49 8 0 Indoor Environmental Quality M anage Potential Pollutants Generated in Home 52 8 0 Indoor Environmental Quality Moisture Management 44 8 0 Indoor Environmental Quality Innovative Options TBD TBD 0 Indoor Environmental Quality Totals 145 24 32/54/72 0

PAGE 192

175 Table A-16. Continued Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Operation, Maintenance & Homeow ner Education Provide Manual 9 1 0 Operation, Maintenance & Homeowne r Education Additional Manual Items 2 1 0 Operation, Maintenance & Homeow ner Education H/O Education 7 1 0 Operation, Maintenance & Home owner Education Solid Waste Recycle. Center 1 1 0 Operation, Maintenance & Homeow ner Education Innovative Options TBD TBD 0 Operation, Maintenance & Ho meowner Education Totals 19 4 7/7/9 0 Global Impact Products 14 3 0 Global Impact Innovative Options 4 1 0 Global Impact Totals 18 4 3/5/6 0 GRAND TOTALS 964 198 163/252/3483 BRONZE/SIL V/GOLD Levels of Certification Points Needed Bronze 237 Silver 311 Gold 395 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2001 3 2002 5 2003 6 2004 8 2005 13 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 35 Note: Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value); Minimum Points correspond to Bronze/Silver/Gold

PAGE 193

176 Grand Traverse Green Built Program Table A-17: Grand Traverse Green Built Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Michigan Name of Organization HBA of Grand Traverse City Name of Program Grand Traverse Green Built Program Organization Type Home Builders Association Date Founded 2001 Verification Procedure(s) Self-Certification Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged Per House: $300 Optional Programs Energy Star Home (90 Points in E nergy (Maximum Allowed in Section)) Optional Programs HVAC Sized Close to Manual J Standards (5 Points in Energy Efficient Building Envelope) Required Programs Meet or Exceed Michi gan Uniform Energy Code Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Site Planning 13 7 0 0 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Energy Star90 1 0 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Air Leakage Test 35 1 0 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Air Sealing Measures 25 19 0 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Insulation 53 24 0 Energy Efficient Building En velope & Systems Windows 32 9 0 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Heating & Cooling Equipment 67 21 0 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Ductwork & Air Handler 58 11 0 Energy Efficient Building Envelope & Systems Total 270 85 75 0 Energy Efficient Lighting/Appliances 15 8 0 0 Resource Efficient Design 32 11 0 0 Resource Efficient Building Materials Recycled & Natural Content Materials 13 10 0 Resource Efficient Building Materials Advanced Products 33 14 0 Resource Efficient Building Materials Durability 20 13 0 Resource Efficient Building Materials Total 98 48 0 0 Waste Management Waste Management Practices 15 4 0 Waste Management Recycle Construction Waste 15 7 0 Waste Management Total 30 11 0 0 Indoor Air Quality Combustion Safety 29 9 0 Indoor Air Quality Moisture Control 13 6 0 Indoor Air Quality Ventilation 35 14 0 Indoor Air Quality Materials 16 13 0 Indoor Air Quality Total 93 42 0 0 Water Indoor 22 15 0 0 Water Outdoor 36 9 0 0

PAGE 194

177 Table A-17. Continued Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Homebuyer Education 26 7 0 0 Builder Operations 9 5 0 0 Bonus Points 55 10 0 0 GRAND TOTAL 699 258 75 0 Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified 150 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2001 0 2002 0 2003 3 2004 4 2005 9 2006 0 GRAND TOTAL 16

PAGE 195

178 Green Building in Alameda County Table A-18: Green Building in Alameda C ounty Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State California Name of Organization Alameda County Waste Management Authority Name of Program Green Building in Alameda County Organization Type Local Government Date Founded 2000 Verification Procedure(s) Self-Certify, Municipal Certificat ion, Third-Party Certification Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged None Optional Programs Exceed California's Title 24 Energy Code (Multiple Points in Other) Required Programs None Original Rating Category Points Possible Line ItemsMinimum Points Mandatory Items Site 25 10 Unique Setup 0 Foundation 17 6 Unique Setup 0 Structural Frame 43 17 Unique Setup 0 Exterior Finish 12 6 Unique Setup 0 Plumbing 28 9 Unique Setup 0 Electrical 17 4 Unique Setup 0 Appliances 6 4 Unique Setup 0 Insulation 17 6 Unique Setup 0 Windows 4 3 Unique Setup 0 HVAC 41 16 Unique Setup 0 Renewable Energy & Resources 44 7 Unique Setup 0 Natural Heating & Cooling 11 3 Unique Setup 0 Indoor Air Quality & Finishes 29 10 Unique Setup 0 Flooring 29 6 Unique Setup 0 Other 34 4 Unique Setup 0 GRAND TOTAL 357 111 Unique Setup 0 Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified 50 Gold Level 60 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2000 N/D 2001 N/D 2002 N/D 2003 N/D 2004 N/D 2005 N/D 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL N/D Note: Minimum Points structure does not follow t he Original Rating Categories, but rather they encompass all categories at once.

PAGE 196

179 Hawaii BuiltGreen Table A-19: Hawaii BuiltGreen Core Char acteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Hawaii Name of Organization Building Industry Association of Hawaii Name of Program Hawaii BuiltGreen Organization Type Home Builders Association Date Founded 2001 Verification Procedure(s) Self Certification Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged None Optional Programs Energy Star Home (5 Points in Energy Performance) Required Programs Energy Efficiency: A/C Homes must meet Hawaii Model Energy Code Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Protecting Your Site's Features & Functions Design Choices 25 6 0 Protecting Your Site's Features & Functions Jobsite Operations15 17 9 Protecting Your Site's Featur es & Functions Outdoor Water Conservation 9 4 0 Protecting Your Site's Featur es & Functions Bonus (Custom Homes Only) 10 2 0 Protecting Your Site's Features & Functions Totals 59 29 5 9 Energy Performance & Comfort Design Choices 113 45 0 Energy Performance & Comfort Air Conditioned Homes Only 23 10 5 Energy Performance & Comfort Water Heating 23 14 2 Energy Performance & Comfort Electric Lighting 16 7 0 Energy Performance & Comfort Appliances 17 6 0 Energy Performance & Comfort Bonus (Custom Homes Only) 10 1 0 Energy Performance & Comfort Totals 202 83 5 7 Health & Indoor Air Quality Design 0 0 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Floors 28 12 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Cabinetry & Trim 8 4 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Interior Walls 8 4 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Mechanical & Other Controls 14 7 1 Health & Indoor Air Quality Air Conditioned Homes Only 11 3 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Job Site Operations 9 5 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Bonus (Custom Homes Only) 3 1 0 Health & Indoor Air Quality Totals 81 36 5 1 Durability & Materials Conservation Design 8 4 0 Durability & Materials Conservation Termite Details 19 14 2 Durability & Materials Conservation Framing 23 11 0 Durability & Materials Conservation Foundation 9 3 0 Durability & Materials Conservation Sub-Floor 2 1 0 Durability & Materials Conserva tion Windows & Doors 12 5 0 Durability & Materials Conservation Insulation 4 2 0 Durability & Materials Conservation Interior Walls 1 1 0 Durability & Materials Conservation Finish Floor 21 10 0

PAGE 197

180 Table A-19. Continued Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Durability & Materials Conservation Cabinetry & Trim 17 6 0 Durability & Materials Conservation Roof 7 4 0 Durability & Materials Conservation Exterior Finish 7 5 0 Durability & Materials Conservati on Outdoor Features 12 6 0 Durability & Materials Conservati on Jobsite Operations 21 21 0 Durability & Materials Conservation Bonus (Custom Homes Only) 30 4 0 Durability & Materials Conservation Totals 193 97 5 2 Environmentally Friendly Home Operations 16 9 5 2 GRAND TOTALS 551 254 25 21 Levels of Certification Points Needed 1 Star 35 or 45 (with A/C) 2 Star 120 or 130 (with A/C) 3 Star 215 or 225 (with A/C) Years in Existence Certified Homes 2001 N/D 2002 N/D 2003 N/D 2004 N/D 2005 N/D 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL N/D Note: Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value)

PAGE 198

181 Innovative Buildi ng Review Program Table A-20: Innovative Buildi ng Review Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State California Name of Organization County of Santa Barbara Name of Program Innovative Building Review Program Organization Type Local Government Date Founded 1995 Verification Procedure(s) Inspection by building inspector for installed energy efficient items Monetary or Procedural Incentives Expedited Permitting; Reduced Permit Fee; Resolution of Condemnation (Depending on Level) Membership Voluntary Fees Charged None Optional Programs Exceed California's Title 24 Energy Code (Multiple Points in Energy) Required Programs None Original Rating Category Points Possible Line ItemsMinimum Points Mandatory Items Energy Section 42 7 None Specified 0 Summer Shading & Wind Protection 15 4 None Specified 0 Siting 4 2 None Specified 0 Building Materials Section 37 10 None Specified 0 Non-Energy Related Building Techniques19 9 None Specified 0 GRAND TOTALS 117 32 None Specified 0 Levels of Certification Points Needed Target 1 20%> Title 24 5 Target 2 30%> Title 24 12 Target 3 40%> Title 24 30 Years in Existence Certified Homes 1995 6 1996 65 1997 193 1998 247 1999 93 2000 16 2001 270 2002 10 2003 14 2004 23 2005 3 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 940

PAGE 199

182 LEED for Homes Table A-21: LEED for Homes Core Characteris tics, Points Worksheet Configuration and Certified Home Data Location Nationwide Name of Organization US Green Building Council Name of Program LEED for Homes Organization Type Nationwide Non-Profit Green Building Council Date Founded September 2005 Verification Procedure(s) Required 5 Tests, with 4 Optional Te sts (Energy 4 test s, IAQ 5 tests Incentives Offered No internal incentives Membership Voluntary Fees Charged Undetermined Optional Programs Energy Star with Indoor Air Package (10 Points in IEQ) Optional Programs Energy Star Advanced Lighting Package (3 Points in Energy) Required Programs ASHRAE 62.2; ACCA Manual D Required Programs Energy Star for Homes & for Windows & for HVAC Original Rating Categories Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Location and Linkages 10 10 None Specified 0 Sustainable Sites 14 11 None Specified 5 Water Efficiency 12 7 None Specified 1 Indoor Environmental Quality 14 23 None Specified 10 Materials and Resources 24 10 None Specified 4 Energy and Atmosphere 29 25 None Specified 6 Homeowner Awareness 1 2 None Specified 1 Innovation and Design Proce ss 4 4 None Specified 0 GRAND TOTAL 108 92 None Specified 27 Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified 30 Silver 50 Gold 70 Platinum 90 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2005 0 2006 0 GRAND TOTAL 0 Note: Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value)

PAGE 200

183 NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines Table A-22: NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines Core Characteristics, Points Worksheet Configuration a nd Certified Home Data Location Nationwide Name of Organization NAHB Name of Program Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines Organization Type Nationwide Association Date Founded Debember 2004 Verification Procedure(s) Depends on HBA Incentives Offered No internal incentives Membership Depends on HBA Fees Charged Depends on HBA Optional Programs BEES or ATHENA Life Cycle Analysis for Materials (8 Points in Resource Efficiency) Optional Programs Energy Star Advanced Lighting Package (7 Points in Energy Efficiency) Required Program Energy Program: Conform to IECC 2003 Energy Standards, or local code, whichever is stricter Required Program HVAC Efficiency: ACCA Manual J 8th Edition Conformance Original Rating Categories Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Lot Design, Preparation and Development Select the Site 30 4 0 Lot Design, Preparation and Development Identify Goals with your Team 6 1 0 Lot Design, Preparation and Development Design the Site 44 7 0 Lot Design, Preparation and Development Develop the Site 16 3 0 Lot Design, Preparation and Development Innovative Options 6 2 0 Lot Design, Preparation and Develop ment Totals 102 17 8/10/12 0 Resource Efficiency Reduce Quality of Materials & Waste 57 7 0 Resource Efficiency Enhance Dura bility & Reduce Maintenance 82 12 0 Resource Efficiency Reuse Materials 17 3 0 Resource Efficiency Use Recycl ed Content Materials 3 1 0 Resource Efficiency Recycle Waste Ma terials During Construction 18 3 0 Resource Efficiency Use Renewable Materials 7 2 0 Resource Efficiency Use Resou ce-Efficient Materials 3 1 0 Resource Efficiency Innovative Options 13 2 0 Resource Efficiency Totals 200 31 44/60/77 0 Energy Efficiency Requirements 0 3 3 Energy Efficiency Performance Path (X% above IECC 2003) 100 1 0 Energy Efficiency Prescriptive Path (In Leiu of Prescriptive Path) 297 10 0 Energy Efficiency Totals 397 14 37/62/100 3 Water Efficiency Indoor/Outdoor Water Use 91 11 0 Water Efficiency Innovative Options 18 3 0 Water Efficiency Totals 109 14 6/13/19 0 Indoor Environmental Quality Minimize Potential Sources of Pollutants 49 8 0 Indoor Environmental Quality Manage Pollutants Generated in the Home 39 6 0 Indoor Environmental Quality Moisture Management 44 8 0 Indoor Environmental Quality Innovative Options 0 0 0 Indoor Environmental Quality Totals 132 22 32/54/72 0

PAGE 201

184 Table A-22. Continued Original Rating Categories Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Operation, Maintenance and Homeowner Education Provide Home Manual 9 9 0 Operation, Maintenance and Homeowner Education Optional Manual Information 2 10 5 Operation, Maintenance and Homeowner Education Further Homeowner Education7 1 0 Operation, Maintenance and Homeowner Education Solid Waste 1 1 0 Operation, Maintenance and Homeowner Education Innovative Options 0 0 0 Operation, Maintenance and Homeowner Education Totals 19 21 7/7/9 5 Global Impact Products 14 3 0 Global Impact Innovative Options 4 1 0 Global Impact Totals 18 4 3/5/6 0 GRAND TOTAL 977 123 137/211/2958 Bronze/Silver/ Gold Levels of Certification Points Needed Bronze 237 Silver 311 Gold 395 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2005 N/D 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL N/D Note: Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value)

PAGE 202

185 North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Table A-23: North Carolina HealthyBuilt Ho mes Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State North Carolina Name of Organization North Carolina Solar Center/State E nergy Office, NC Dept. of Admin. Name of Program North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Organization Type Alliance Date Founded 2004 Verification Procedure(s) Inspection by HBH Monetary or Procedural Incentives None working on tax credit incentive Membership Voluntary Fees Charged Annual: $725; Per Home: $45 Optional Programs None Required Programs Energy Star Home Required Programs Size HVAC via Manual J Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Prerequisites 0 9 9 Soil Opportunities Soil/Amendments 9 3 0 Soil Opportunities Vegetation 19 6 0 Soil Opportunities Development 10 2 0 Soil Opportunities Total 38 11 7 0 Water Opportunities Indoor 29 8 0 Water Opportunities Outdoor 10 6 0 Water Opportunities Total 39 14 9 0 Building Envelope General 15 4 1 Building Envelope Air Infiltration 10 2 0 Building Envelope Insulation 99 35 0 Building Envelope Window & Doors 9 5 0 Building Envelope Total 133 46 15 1 Comfort System Passive Solar Heat ing & Cooling Strategies 55 10 0 Comfort System Mechanical Comfort Systems 113 26 0 Comfort System Total 168 36 20 0 Appliances, Lighting, Renewables Appliances 24 10 0 Appliances, Lighting, Renewables Lighting 9 6 0 Appliances, Lighting, Renewables Renewables 269 19 0 Appliances, Lighting, Renewables Total 302 35 10 0 Indoor Air Quality Opportunities General 8 1 0 Indoor Air Quality Opportunities Structural Air Quality 14 6 0 Indoor Air Quality Opportunities Appliance Air Quality 36 15 0 Indoor Air Quality Opportunities IAQ Material Use 31 15 0 Indoor Air Quality Opportunities Total 89 37 20 0 Material Opportunities General 30 3 0 Material Opportunities Construction Material Waste 23 12 0 Material Opportunities Exterior/Structural System Materials 89 44 0 Material Opportunities Interior Materials 35 16 0 Material Opportunities Total 177 75 22 0 Bonus Opportunities 38 11 2 0

PAGE 203

186 Table A-23. Continued Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items GRAND TOTAL 984 274 105 10 Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified 125 Bronze Certified 151 Silver Certified 201 Gold Certified 251 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2004 7 2005 8 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 15 Note: Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value)

PAGE 204

187 Scottsdales GREENBUILDING Program Table A-24: Scottsdales GREENBUILDING Program Co re Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Arizona Name of Organization City of Scottsdale Name of Program Scottsdale's GREENBUILDING Program Organization Type Local Government Date Founded 1998 Verification Procedure(s) Plan Note Monetary or Procedural Incentives Expedited Plan Review Membership Voluntary Fees Charged None Optional Programs Energy Star Home (6 Points in Special Options) Optional Programs Size HVAC via Manual J (3 Points in Heating Cooling & Ventilation) Required Programs None Original Rating Category Points Possible Line ItemsMinimum Points Mandatory Items Site Use 26 19 None Specified 1 Structural Elements 23 12 None Specified 1 Building Envelope 59 34 None Specified 5 Heating, Cooling & Ventilation 52 28 None Specified 6 Indoor Air Quality 0 4 None Specified 4 Electrical Power, Lighting & Appliances 63 19 None Specified 3 Plumbing System 47 14 None Specified 3 Roofing 13 7 None Specified 0 Exterior Finishes 12 10 None Specified 0 Interior Finishes 12 8 None Specified 1 Interior Doors, Cabinetry, Trim 18 11 None Specified 0 Finish Floor 13 11 None Specified 1 Pools & Spas 24 8 None Specified 0 Solid Waste 15 5 None Specified 1 Special Options 22 7 None Specified 0 GRAND TOTAL 399 197 None Specified 26 Levels of Certification Points Needed Entry Level 26 Advanced Level 56 Years in Existence Certified Homes 1998 20 1999 36 2000 41 2001 38 2002 33 2003 38 2004 231 2005 436 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 873 Note: Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value)

PAGE 205

188 Vermont Builds Greener Program Table A-25: Vermont Builds Greener Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Vermont Name of Organization Vermont Energy Investment Corp. Name of Program Vermont Builds Greener Program Organization Type Alliance Date Founded 2003 Verification Procedure(s) Self-Certify & Inspections Monetary or Procedural Incentives State Energy Incentiv es, Free Energy Rating Membership Voluntary Fees Charged Per home: $700 Optional Programs None Required Programs Energy Star Home; HVAC Sized via Manual J Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Siting & Land Use Location 21 6 None Specified0 Siting & Land Use Optimize Land Use 47 26 None Specified4 Siting & Land Use Community 14 5 None Specified0 Siting & Land Use Total 82 37 None Specified 4 Building Design Efficient Building Design 51 23 None Specified0 Quality/Durability 35 27 None Specified7 Energy Use Envelope & Systems 37 29 None Specified8 Energy Use Efficient Lighting & Appliances 46 14 None Specified4 Energy Use Sustainable Equipment 41 17 None Specified2 Energy Use Total 124 60 None Specified 14 Resource Impacts Resource Efficient & Environmentally Responsible Materials 86 40 None Specified2 Resource Impacts Reduce, Reuse, Recycle 28 15 None Specified1 Resource Impacts Encourage Diversion of Waste for Recycling During Construction 2 3 None Specified1 Resource Impacts Water Efficiency 23 10 None Specified0 Resource Impacts Total 139 68 None Specified 4 Occupant Health/Indoor Air Quality Minimize Sources of Pollutants 43 45 None Specified18 Occupant Health/Indoor Air Quality Provide Ventilation to Remove Pollutants Generated in the House 11 14 None Specified7 Occupant Health/Indoor Air Quality Total 54 59 None Specified 25 Keeping it Green 5 5 None Specified3 GRAND TOTAL 490 279 None Specified 57 Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified 100 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2003 0 2004 0 2005 3 2006 0 GRAND TOTAL 3 Note: Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value)

PAGE 206

189 Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes Table A-26: Western North Ca rolina Healthy Built Homes Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State North Carolina Name of Organization Western North Carolina Green Building Council Name of Program Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes Organization Type Non-Profit Organization Date Founded 2005 Verification Procedure(s) Inspection Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged $900 per home with HERS rating; $390 per home without HERS rating Optional Programs None Required Programs Energy Star Home Required Programs Size HVAC via Manual J Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Prerequisites 0 9 0 9 Development Opportunities 18 4 0 0 Soil Opportunities Soil/Amendments 9 3 0 Soil Opportunities Vegetation 19 6 0 Soil Opportunities Development 10 2 0 Site Opportunities Western NC Specific only for Western NC Program 8 4 0 Soil Opportunities Total 46 15 7 0 Water Opportunities Indoor 29 8 0 Water Opportunities Outdoor 10 6 0 Water Opportunities Western NC Specific only for Western NC Program 12 4 0 Water Opportunities Total 51 18 9 0 Building Envelope General 15 4 1 Building Envelope Air Infiltration 10 2 0 Building Envelope Insulation 99 35 0 Building Envelope Window & Doors 9 5 0 Building Envelope Total 133 46 15 1 Comfort System Passive Solar Heat ing & Cooling Strategies 55 10 0 Comfort System Mechanical Comfort Systems 113 26 0 Comfort System Total 168 36 20 0 Appliances, Lighting, Renewables Appliances 24 10 0 Appliances, Lighting, Renewables Lighting 9 6 0 Appliances, Lighting, Renewables Renewables 269 19 0 Appliances, Lighting, Renewables Total 302 35 10 0 Indoor Air Quality Opportunities General 8 1 0 Indoor Air Quality Opportunities Structural Air Quality 14 6 0 Indoor Air Quality Opportunities Appliance Air Quality 36 15 0 Indoor Air Quality Opportunities IAQ Material Use 31 15 0 Indoor Air Quality Opportunities Total 89 37 20 0 Material Opportunities General 30 3 0

PAGE 207

190 Table A-26. Continued Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Material Opportunities Construction Material Waste 23 12 0 Material Opportunities Exterior/Structural System Materials 89 44 0 Material Opportunities Interior Materials 35 16 0 Material Opportunities Total 177 75 22 0 Bonus Opportunities 38 11 2 0 Other Opportunities 12 3 0 0 GRAND TOTAL 1034 289 105 10 Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified 125 Bronze Certified 151 Silver Certified 201 Gold Certified 251 Years in Existence Certified Homes 2005 21 2006 53 GRAND TOTAL 74 Note: Mandatory Items Only Count as Line Items (No Point Value)

PAGE 208

191 Wisconsin Green Built Home Table A-27: Wisconsin Green Built Home Co re Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Wisconsin Name of Organization Wisconsin Environmental Initiative Name of Program Wisconsin Green Built Home Organization Type Alliance Date Founded 1999 Verification Procedure(s) Random Inspections (10%) Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged Annual: $300; Per Home: $50/$75 (member/nonmember) Optional Programs Energy Star Home (10 Points in Other Basic Requirements) Required Programs None Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Basic Requirements 10 1 1 1 Other Basic Requirements 0 7 0 7 Siting & Land Use 17 10 0 0 Landscape Conservation & Stormwater Management 48 31 3 0 Energy Efficiency Site Design 10 5 0 Energy Efficiency Insulation & Air Sealing 13 8 0 Energy Efficiency Glazing 16 10 0 Energy Efficiency Mechanical Systems 43 23 0 Energy Efficiency Water Heating 26 14 0 Energy Efficiency Appliances 9 4 0 Energy Efficiency Lighting 24 13 0 Energy Efficiency Integrated Climactic Design 13 3 0 Energy Efficiency Totals 154 80 10 0 Materials Selection Exterior 9 5 0 Materials Selection Below Grade 15 10 0 Materials Selection Structural Frame 37 16 0 Materials Selection Envelope 28 18 0 Materials Selection Insulation 15 7 0 Materials Selection Roof 11 4 0 Materials Selection SubFloor 10 4 0 Materials Selection Finish Floor 22 10 0 Materials Selection Doors, Cabinetry & Trim 21 11 0 Materials Selection Totals 168 85 6 0 Indoor Air Quality General 32 22 0 Indoor Air Quality IAQ Materials 25 14 0 Indoor Air Quality IAQ Finishes & Adhesives 21 7 0 Indoor Air Quality Totals 78 43 5 0 Plumbing & Water Conservation 20 13 0 0 Waste Reduction, Recycling & Disposal 29 16 1 0 Builder Operations 33 14 0 0 Efficient Use of Space 23 17 0 0 GRAND TOTAL 580 317 26 8

PAGE 209

192 Table A-27. Continued Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified & Energy Star 43 Certified & 15% above minimum52 Years in Existence Certified Homes 1999 30 2000 46 2001 127 2002 340 2003 411 2004 644 2005 563 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 2161

PAGE 210

193 APPENDIX B PRESCRIPTIVE PROGRAM DATA The following is the information that stemmed from the analysis of each prescriptive rating system for this study. The source of the majority of this information was the rating system documentation, a nd other information came from personal correspondences with various employees of the companies that administer the rating systems. As described in the methodology chapte r, the information from the point worksheets was normalized over the following ten categories: Bonus/Innovaion, Builder Operations, Energy Efficiency, Homeowne r Education/O&M, Indoor Environmental Quality, Preexisting Standards/Codes, Res ource/Material Efficiency, Site Planning, Water Efficiency, Unique. Additionally, the da ta for the point worksheets and certified homes was also normalized according to geograp hic region. Please refer to Chapter 3 for more information. However, the information contained herein is the verbatim information that can be found on each programs builder guidelines. Please not that any entry that states “N/D” means that there was no data available.

PAGE 211

194 ALA Health House Table B-1: ALA Health House Core Char acteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Nationwide Name of Organization American Lung Association Name of Program ALA Health House Organization Type Nationwide Association Date Founded 1993 Verification Procedure(s) Inspections & Testing Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged $2,500 Per Home, unless Energy Star, Building America or Environments for Living Rated ($1750 Per Home) Optional Programs Size HVAC According to Manual J Required Programs Not Specified Original Rating Category Points PossibleLine ItemsMinimum Points Mandatory Items Site PRESCRIPTIVE13 PRESCRIPTIVE Not Specified Building Enclosure PRESCRIPTIVE105 PRESCRIPTIVE Not Specified Finishes and Furnishings PRESCRIPTIVE67 PRESCRIPTIVE Not Specified Mechanical Equipment PRESCRIPTIVE61 PRESCRIPTIVE Not Specified Commissioning PRESCRIPTIVE7 PRESCRIPTIVE Not Specified Construction Hygiene, Safety and Health PRESCRIPTIVE4 PRESCRIPTIVE Not Specified GRAND TOTALS PRESCRIPTIVE257 PRESCRIPTIVE Not Specified Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified PRESCRIPTIVE Years in ExistenceCertified Homes 1993 DID NOT TRACK 1994 DID NOT TRACK 1995 DID NOT TRACK 1996 DID NOT TRACK 1997 DID NOT TRACK 1998 DID NOT TRACK 1999 DID NOT TRACK 2000 DID NOT TRACK 2001 DID NOT TRACK 2002 DID NOT TRACK 2003 DID NOT TRACK 2004 DID NOT TRACK 2005 1000 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 1000

PAGE 212

195 California Green Builder Program Table B-2: California Green Builder Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State California Name of Organization California Building I ndustry Association Name of Program California Green Builder Program Organization Type Alliance Date Founded 2001 Verification Procedure(s) Inspection (HERS & Organizational) Monetary or Procedural Incentives Permitting Time/Fees Lowered Membership Voluntary Fees Charged $ 50 Max Per Home, depending on #homes/year & member Optional Programs None Required Programs HVAC Sized via Manual J Required Programs 15% More Efficient than Califor nia Title 24 Energy Standard Original Rating Category Points Possible Line ItemsMinimum Points Mandatory Items Advanced Ventilation PRESCRIPTIVE 9 PRESCRIPTIVE 9 Energy Efficiency PRESCRIPTIVE 5 PRESCRIPTIVE 5 Waste Management PRESCRIPTIVE 3 PRESCRIPTIVE 3 Water Conservation PRESCRIPTIVE 4 PRESCRIPTIVE 4 GRAND TOTAL PRESCRIPTIVE 21 PRESCRIPTIVE 21 Levels of CertificationPoints Needed Certified Prescriptive Years in Existence Certified Homes 2001 N/D 2002 N/D 2003 N/D 2004 N/D 2005 1300 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 1300

PAGE 213

196 CNM Building America Partner Table B-3: CNM Building America Partner Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State New Mexico Name of Organization Central New Mexico Name of Program CNM Building America Partner Organization Type Alliance Date Founded 2001 Verification Procedure(s) Third party, HERS Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Voluntary Fees Charged Membership Fee $295; Approx. $40/Home Optional Programs None Required Programs Energy Star Home Original Rating Category Points Possible Line ItemsMinimum Points Mandatory Items Energy Conservation Whole House Leakage PRESCRIPTIVE 1 PRESCRIPTIVE 1 Energy Conservation Duct Leakage & Design PRESCRIPTIVE 2 PRESCRIPTIVE 2 Energy Conservation Plan Revi ew PRESCRIPTIVE 2 PRESCRIPTIVE 2 Energy Conservation Pressure Bala ncing PRESCRIPTIVE 3 PRESCRIPTIVE 3 Required Materials Windows PRESCRIPTIVE 1 PRESCRIPTIVE 1 Required Materials Insulation PRESCRIPTIVE 4 PRESCRIPTIVE 3 Mechanical Equipment HVAC PRESCRIPTIVE 6 PRESCRIPTIVE 4 Mechanical Equipment Mechanical Vent ilationPRESCRIPTIVE 6 PRESCRIPTIVE 5 Building Practices Recommended Construction Techniques PRESCRIPTIVE 6 PRESCRIPTIVE 4 Building Practices Environmental Guid elines PRESCRIPTIVE 5 PRESCRIPTIVE 3 GRAND TOTAL PRESCRIPTIVE 36 PRESCRIPTIVE 28 Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified PRESCRIPTIVE Years in Existence Certified Homes 2001 782 2002 706 2003 643 2004 588 2005 667 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 3386 Line Items that are not Mandatory Only Correspond to Certain Construction Options/Procedures

PAGE 214

197 EcoBuild Program Table B-4: EcoBuild Program Core Char acteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Tennessee Name of Organization Memphis Light Gas & Power Shelby Name of Program EcoBuild Program Organization Type Local Utility Company Date Founded 2003 Verification Procedure(s) Third Party Testing Monetary or Procedural Incentives Financial Incentives from Utility Membership Voluntary Fees Charged $300 Per Home Optional Programs None Required Programs Size HVAC via Manual J Original Rating Category Points PossibleLine ItemsMinimum Points Mandatory Items Energy and Water Use PRESCRIPTIVE21 PRESCRIPTIVE 16 Testing PRESCRIPTIVE1 PRESCRIPTIVE 1 Health & Safety PRESCRIPTIVE6 PRESCRIPTIVE 0 Materials PRESCRIPTIVE3 PRESCRIPTIVE 1 Community PRESCRIPTIVE7 PRESCRIPTIVE 3 Alternative Systems PRESCRIPTIVE6 PRESCRIPTIVE 0 GRAND TOTAL PRESCRIPTIVE44 PRESCRIPTIVE 21 Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified PRESCRIPTIVE Years in Existence Certified Homes 2003 0 2004 6 2005 93 2006 5 GRAND TOTAL 104 Only Certain Features are Mandator y in this Prescr iptive Program

PAGE 215

198 Frisco Green Building Program Table B-5: Frisco Green Building Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Texas Name of Organization City of Frisco Name of Program Frisco Green Building Program Organization Type Local Government Date Founded 2001 Verification Procedure(s) 3rd Party Testing Monetary or Procedural Incentives None Membership Mandatory Fees Charged None Optional Programs None Required Programs Energy Star Home Original Rating Category Points Possible Line ItemsMinimum Points Mandatory Items Energy Efficiency PRESCRIPTIVE 1 Prescriptive 1 Water Conservation PRESCRIPTIVE 5 Prescriptive 5 Indoor Air Quality PRESCRIPTIVE 11 Prescriptive 11 Waste Recycling PRESCRIPTIVE 5 Prescriptive 5 GRAND TOTALS PRESCRIPTIVE 22 Prescriptive 22 Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified PRESCRIPTIVE Years in Existence Certified Homes 2001 1 2002 242 2003 843 2004 1949 2005 2712 2006 148 GRAND TOTAL 5895

PAGE 216

199 APPENDIX C ENERGY GUARANTEE PROGRAM DATA The following is the information that st emmed from the analysis of each energy guarantee rating system for this study. The sour ce of the majority of this information was the rating system documentation, and ot her information came from personal correspondences with various employees of the companies that administer the rating systems. As described in the methodology chapte r, the information from the point worksheets was normalized over the following ten categories: Bonus/Innovaion, Builder Operations, Energy Efficiency, Homeowne r Education/O&M, Indoor Environmental Quality, Preexisting Standards/Codes, Res ource/Material Efficiency, Site Planning, Water Efficiency, Unique. Additionally, the da ta for the point worksheets and certified homes was also normalized according to geograp hic region. Please refer to Chapter 3 for more information. However, the information contained herein is the verbatim information that can be found on each programs builder guidelines. Please not that any entry that states “N/D” means that there was no data available.

PAGE 217

200 APS Performance Built Homes Table C-1: APS Performan ce Built Homes Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Arizona Name of Organization Arizona Public Service Name of Program APS Performance Built Homes Organization Type Local Utility Company Date Founded 2001 Verification Procedure(s) 3rd Party Raters Monetary or Procedural Incentives Guaranteed Heating & Cooling Costs Membership Voluntary Fees Charged None Optional Programs ALA Health House Option for Diamond Class Required Programs ACCA Manual J Equip. Sizing; Energy Star Gold, Platinum & Diamond Levels Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Builders Responsibilities PR ESCRIPTIVE9 PRESCRIPTIVE 9 Framing PRESCRIPTIVE1 PRESCRIPTIVE 1 Thermal Envelope PRESCRIPTIVE5 PRESCRIPTIVE 5 Air Sealing PRESCRIPTIVE3 PRESCRIPTIVE 3 Pre Drywall PRESCRIPTIVE4 PRESCRIPTIVE 4 Post Drywall PRESCRIPTIVE1 PRESCRIPTIVE 1 Mechanicals PRESCRIPTIVE7 PRESCRIPTIVE 7 Ducts PRESCRIPTIVE4 PRESCRIPTIVE 4 Ventilation PRESCRIPTIVE4 PRESCRIPTIVE 4 Pressure Balancing PRES CRIPTIVE1 PRESCRIPTIVE 1 Carbon Monoxide DetectorsPRESCRIPTIVE6 PRESCRIPTIVE 6 Moisture Management PRESCRIPTIVE4 PRESCRIPTIVE 4 Testing PRESCRIPTIVE3 PRESCRIPTIVE 3 GRAND TOTALS PRESCRIPTIVE52 PRESCRIPTIVE 52 Levels of Certification Points Needed Participating PRESCRIPTIVE Silver PRESCRIPTIVE Gold PRESCRIPTIVE Platinum PRESCRIPTIVE Diamond PRESCRIPTIVE Years in Existence Certified Homes 2001 N/D 2002 N/D 2003 N/D 2004 N/D 2005 N/D 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 12000 Note: only higher levels of certification require all mandatory items to be satisfied

PAGE 218

201 Environments for Living Table C-2: Environments for Living Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Nationwide Name of Organization Masco Contractor Services Name of Program Environments for Living Organization Type Utility Guarantee Nationwide Date Founded 2001 Verification Procedure(s) 10%-100% Tested: Depends on Ce rtification Level Achieved Monetary or Procedural Incentives 2-3 Year Energy Usage Guarantee Membership Voluntary Fees Charged Plan Review Fee; Package Fee (Both depend on rating achieved and home size) Optional Programs ALA Health House is an option for Diamond Class Required Programs ACCA Manual J Equip. Sizing; Ener gy Star Gold, Platinum & Diamond Levels Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Builders Responsibilities PR ESCRIPTIVE9 PRESCRIPTIVE 9 Framing PRESCRIPTIVE1 PRESCRIPTIVE 1 Thermal Envelope PRESCRIPTIVE5 PRESCRIPTIVE 5 Air Sealing PRESCRIPTIVE3 PRESCRIPTIVE 3 Pre Drywall PRESCRIPTIVE4 PRESCRIPTIVE 4 Post Drywall PRESCRIPTIVE1 PRESCRIPTIVE 1 Mechanicals PRESCRIPTIVE7 PRESCRIPTIVE 7 Ducts PRESCRIPTIVE4 PRESCRIPTIVE 4 Ventilation PRESCRIPTIVE4 PRESCRIPTIVE 4 Pressure Balancing PRES CRIPTIVE1 PRESCRIPTIVE 1 Carbon Monoxide DetectorsPRESCRIPTIVE6 PRESCRIPTIVE 6 Moisture Management PRESCRIPTIVE4 PRESCRIPTIVE 4 Testing PRESCRIPTIVE3 PRESCRIPTIVE 3 GRAND TOTALS PRESCRIPTIVE52 PRESCRIPTIVE 52 Levels of Certification Points Needed Participating PRESCRIPTIVE Silver PRESCRIPTIVE Gold PRESCRIPTIVE Platinum PRESCRIPTIVE Diamond PRESCRIPTIVE Years in Existence Certified Homes 2001 N/D 2002 N/D 2003 N/D 2004 N/D 2005 N/D 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 12000 Note: only higher levels of certification require all mandatory items to be satisfied

PAGE 219

202 TEP Guarantee Home Program Table C-3: TEP Guarantee Home Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home Data Location State Arizona Name of Organization Tucson Electric Power Name of Program TEP Guarantee Home Program Organization Type Local Utility Company Utility Guarantee Date Founded 1997 Verification Procedure(s) EPA Testing, Other Testing ON 100% OF HOMES Monetary or Procedural Incentives Guaranteed Heating & Cooling Costs for 5 Years Membership Voluntary Fees Charged None Optional Programs None Required Programs Size HVAC via Manual J Required Programs Size Ducts via Manual D Original Rating Category Points Possible Line Items Minimum Points Mandatory Items Thermal Performance Standards PRESCRIPTIVE3 PRESCRIPTIVE 3 Equipment Type PRESCRIPTIVE5 PRESCRIPTIVE 5 Framing Related to Thermal Perfor mance PRESCRIPTIVE8 PRESCRIPTIVE 8 Insulation Installation & Placement PRESCRIPTIVE13 PRESCRIPTIVE 10 Air Sealing PRESCRIPTIVE6 PRESCRIPTIVE 6 HVAC Load Calculation & Equipment Selection (Tile or BUR Roof System) PRESCRIPTIVE2 PRESCRIPTIVE 2 HVAC Load Calculation & Equipment Selection (Shingle Roofs) PRESCRIPTIVE5 PRESCRIPTIVE 5 HVAC Installation PRESCRIPTIVE2 PRESCRIPTIVE 2 HVAC Mechanical Fresh Air Ventilation PRESCRIPTIVE9 PRESCRIPTIVE 9 HVAC Total PRESCRIPTIVE18 PRESCRIPTIVE 18 Air Distribution System Duct s PRESCRIPTIVE10 PRESCRIPTIVE 10 Air Distribution System Return Ai r Path PRESCRIPTIVE4 PRESCRIPTIVE 3 A ir Distribution System Totals PRESCRIPTIVE14 PRESCRIPTIVE 13 Testing & Balance Pressure Bala nce PRESCRIPTIVE2 PRESCRIPTIVE 2 Testing & Balance Supply Air Balance PRESCRIPTIVE1 PRESCRIPTIVE 1 Testing & Balance PRESCRIPTIVE3 PRESCRIPTIVE 3 Combustion Safety PRESCRIPTIVE3 PRESCRIPTIVE 3 Filtration PRESCRIPTIVE1 PRESCRIPTIVE 1 GRAND TOTALS PRESCRIPTIVE74 PRESCRIPTIVE 70

PAGE 220

203 Table C-3. Continued Levels of Certification Points Needed Certified PRESCRIPTIVE Years in Existence Certified Homes 1997 N/D 1998 N/D 1999 N/D 2000 N/D 2001 N/D 2002 N/D 2003 N/D 2004 N/D 2005 N/D 2006 N/D GRAND TOTAL 5347 Line Items that are not mandatory Only Correspo nd to Certain Construction Options/Procedures

PAGE 221

204 APPENDIX D HISTORICAL AND REGIONAL CERTIFIED HOME DATA The following is the information that st emmed from the analysis of each rating system for this study. The source of the majority of this information was personal correspondences with various employees of the companies that administer the rating systems. The following tables show home certification data from 1991 to February of 2006. Please note that any indica tion of N/D signifies that there was no data available for that specific year (or years). Also, please note that any indication of - signifies that the rating system was not yet in existence at that point in time.

PAGE 222

Certified Home Data: All 35 Programs Table D-1: Certified Home Data 1991 to February of 2006, All Programs Region Program 19911992199319941995199619971998 199920002001200220032004 2005 2006Total National A LA Health House N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 1000 N/D 1000 Southwestern A PS Performance Built Homes N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 12000 Southeastern A rlington Green Home Choice 0 2 2 1 5 Southwestern A spen Efficient Building Program N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Southern A ustin Energy's Green Building ProgramN/D N/D N/D 14 14 471 236 197 517 661 343 681 587 822 1118 N/D 5661 Southwestern Boulder Green Points Program N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Southern Build San Antonio Green 0 3 0 3 Southwestern Built Green Colorado N/D 216 1,1691,200 1,5352,5993,7813,9944,9425,7424771 N/D 29949 Pacific Northwest Built Green Jefferson County N/D N/D N/D Pacific Northwest Built Green King/Snohomish C ounties 36 10091491921 1653 942 160 6212 Pacific Northwest Built Green Kitsap N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 800 Pacific Northwest Built Green Olympia 0 7 1 8 Pacific Northwest Built Green Pierce County 0 50 400 N/D 450 Pacific Northwest Built Green Whatcom County 0 15 0 15 Southwestern California Green Builder Program N/D N/D N/D N/D 1300 N/D 1300 Southwestern CNM Building America Partner 782 706 643 588 667 N/D 3386 Pacific Northwest Earth Advantage 0 14 46 445 911 1113 1372 N/D 3901 Southeastern EarthCraft House 1 71 360 362 518 652 800 210 2974 Southern EcoBuild Program 0 6 93 5 104 National Environments for Living N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 75000 Southeastern Florida Green Home Destinat ion 2 3 10 65 171 65 316 Southern Frisco Green Building Program 1 242 843 1949 2712 148 5895 Midwest Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. 3 5 6 8 13 N/D 35 Midwest Grand Traverse Green Built Program 0 0 3 4 9 0 16 Southwestern Green Building in Alameda County N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Pacific Hawaii BuiltGreen N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Southwestern Innovative Building Review Program 6 65 193 247 93 16 270 10 14 23 3 N/D 940 National LEED for Homes 0 0 0 205

PAGE 223

Table D-1. Continued Region Program 19911992199319941995199619971998 199920002001200220032004 2005 2006Total National NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guideli nes N/D N/D N/D Southeastern North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program 7 8 N/D 15 Southwestern Scottsdale's GREENBUILDING Progr am 20 36 41 38 33 38 231 436 N/D 873 Southwestern TEP Guarantee Home Program N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 5347 New England Vermont Builds Greener Program 0 0 3 0 3 Southeastern Western North Carolina Health Built Homes 21 53 74 Midwest Wisconsin Green Built Home 30 46 127 340 411 644 563 N/D 2161 GRAND TOTALS N/D N/D N/D 14 20 752 15981664 221234846762831298471355916429643 158443 Note: EarthCraft House 2005 & 2006 data is estimated 206

PAGE 224

Certified Home Data: 27 Points-Based Programs Table D-2: Points-Based Program Certif ied Home Data 1991 to February of 2006 Region Program 1991199219931994199519961997 199819992000200120022003200420052006Total Southeastern A rlington Green Home Choice 0 2 2 1 5 Southwestern A spen Efficient Building Program N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Southern A ustin Energy's Green Building Program N/DN/DN/D14 14 471236 197 517 661 343 681 587 822 1118N/D 5661 Southwestern Boulder Green Points Program N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Southern Build San Antonio Green 0 3 0 3 Southwestern Built Green Colorado N/D2161,169 1,2001,5352,5993,7813,9944,9425,7424771N/D 29,949 Pacific Northwest Built Green Jefferson County N/D N/D N/D Pacific Northwest Built Green King/Snohomish C ounties 36 10091491921 1653942 160 6212 Pacific Northwest Built Green Kitsap N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 800 Pacific Northwest Built Green Olympia 0 7 1 8 Pacific Northwest Built Green Pierce County 0 50 400 N/D 450 Pacific Northwest Built Green Whatcom County 0 15 0 15 Pacific Northwest Earth Advantage 0 14 46 445 911 11131372N/D 3901 Southeastern EarthCraft House 1 71 360 362 518 652 800(e)210(e)2974 Southeastern Florida Green Home Destinat ion 2 3 10 65 171 65 316 Midwest Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. 3 5 6 8 13 N/D 35 Midwest Grand Traverse Green Built Program 0 0 3 4 9 0 16 Southwestern Green Building in Alameda County N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Pacific Hawaii BuiltGreen N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Southwestern Innovative Building Review Program 6 65 193 247 93 16 270 10 14 23 3 N/D 940 National LEED for Homes 0 0 0 National NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guideli nes N/D N/D N/D Southeastern North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program 7 8 N/D 15 Southwestern Scottsdale's GREENBUILDING Pr ogram 20 36 41 38 33 38 231 436 N/D 873 New England Vermont Builds Greener Program 0 0 3 0 3 Southeastern Western North Carolina Health Built Homes 21 53 74 Midwest Wisconsin Green Built Home 30 46 127 340 411 644 563 N/D 2161 GRAND TOTALS N/DN/DN/D14 20 7521598 1664221234845979736483611101610657490 54411 207

PAGE 225

Certified Home Data: Five Prescriptive Programs Table D-3: Prescriptive Program Certified Home Data 1991 February of 2006 Region Program 19911992199319941995199619971998 19992000200120022003200420052006Total National A LA Health House N/DN/DN/DN/DN/DN/D N/DN/DN/DN/DN/DN/D1000N/D1000 Southwestern California Green Builder Program N/DN/DN/DN/D1300N/D1300 Southwestern CNM Building America Partner 782706643588667N/D3386 Southern EcoBuild Program 0 6 93 5 104 Southern Frisco Green Building Program 1 242843194927121485895 GRAND TOTALS N/DN/DN/DN/DN/DN/D N/DN/D78394814862543577215311685 208

PAGE 226

Certified Home Data: Three Energy Guarantee Programs Table D-4: Energy Guarantee Program Cer tified Home Data 1991 February of 2006 Southwestern A PS Performance Built Homes N/DN/DN/DN/DN/DN/D12000 National Environments for Living N/DN/DN/DN/DN/DN/D75000 Southwestern TEP Guarantee Home Program N/D N/D N/DN/DN/DN/DN/DN/DN/DN/D5347 GRAND TOTALS N/D N/D N/DN/DN/DN/DN/DN/DN/DN/D92347 209

PAGE 227

210 LIST OF REFERENCES Alameda County Waste Management Authorit y (2003). New Home Construction: Green Building Guidelines. StopWaste.Org Retrieved December 3rd, 2005, from http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/newhomes.pdf American Lung Association (N.D.). W hy Does Indoor Air Quality Matter? American Lung Associations Health House program Retrieved January 25th, 2006, from http://www.healthhouse.org/IAQ/WhyIAQ.asp BizEd (2005, November/December). Green Mansions. BizEd, 5(1) 33-34. Retrieved January 15th, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Bowen, T.S. (2005). New Rating Systems fo r Green Homes Draw Both Conflict and Interest. Architectural Record, 193(4), 225-226. Retrieved December 19th, 2005, from EBSCOhost database. Building Design and Construction (2004). Reth inking Green Building Laws At the State and Local Level. Building Design and Construction, 45(November Supplement) 22-25. Retrieved December 13th, 2005, from EBSCOhost database database. BuildingGreen, Inc. (2002). State and Local Green Building Programs. Environmental Building News, 11(5) Special Reprint. Retrieved November 11th, 2005, from http://www.buildinggreen.com/aut h/article.cfm?fileName=110504a.xml Carlton, J. (2004, January). Builders Group Plans National Guidelines for Green Homes. Wall Street Journal, January 21st, B8. Retrieved November 29th, 2005, from ProQuest database. Cassidy, R. (Ed.) (2003). White Paper on Sustainability. Building Design and Construction supplement. Retrieved December 19th, 2005, from ProQuest Database. Chiras, D. (2000). The Natural House White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company. Cole, R.J. (1998). Emerging Trends in Bu ilding Environmental Assessment Methods. Building Research & Information, 26(1) 3-16. Retrieved November 7th, 2005, from EBSCOhost database.

PAGE 228

211 Cole, R.J. (2001). A Building Environmental Assessment Method for British Columbia. Prepared for the Stakeholders in BC Green Buildings Ad-Hoc Committee Retrieved January 4th, 2006, from http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/buildsmart/pdfs/ASSESSMENT%20REPORT.PDF Cole, R.J. (2003). Building Environmental Assessment Methods: A Measure of Success. The Future of Sustainable Construction Retrieved September 13th, 2005, from http://www.bcn.ufl.edu/iejc/pindex/62/cole.pdf Cole, R.J., Howard, N., Ikaga, T., & Nibel, S. (2005). Building Environmental Assessment Tools: Current and Future Roles. Issue Paper: The 2005 Sustainable Building Conference Retrieved December 29th, 2005, from http://www.sb05.com/academic/4&5_IssuePaper.pdf Dooley, R. & Rivera, J. (2004, March) Green Building Goes Mainstream. Professional Builder, 69(3) 71-72. Retrieved January 5th, 2006, from WilsonWeb OmniFile database. Eisenberg, D., Done, R., & Is hida, L. (2002). Breaking Down the Barriers: Challenges and Solutions to Code Approval of Green Building. Development Center for Applied Technology Retrieved January 13th, 2006, from http://www.dcat.net/about_dcat/cu rrent/Breaking_Down_Barriers.pdf Engstrom, N. (2003). Shades of Green: Green Building Rating Tools and the Logics They Represent Masters Thesis for the Univ ersity of Texas at Austin. Fay, R., Treloar, G., & Iyer-R agina, U. (2000). Life-Cycle Energy Analysis of Buildings: A Case Study. Building Research & Information, 28(1) 31-41. Retrieved December 15th, 2005, from EBSCOhost database. Federal Citizen Information Center (n.d.) Energy Efficient Mortgage Home Owner Guide Retrieved February 19th, 2006, from http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/hous ing/energy_mort/energy-mortgage.htm Gowri, K. (2004). Green Building Rating Systems: An Overview. ASHRAE Journal, 46(11) 56-59. Retrieved October 26th, 2005, from EBSCOhost database. GreenBiz.com (2005). Local Market Factors Determine Traction of Green Building, Survey Says Retrieved January 19th, 2005, from http://www.greenbiz.com/news /news_third.cfm?NewsID=29290 Grosskopf, K. (2003). Investing in Green Building Alternatives: U.S. Consumer Willingness-to-Pay. The Future of Sustainable Construction Retrieved October 3rd, 2005, from http://www.bcn.ufl.edu/iejc /pindex/107/grosskopf.pdf Gunshinan, J. (2004). The Evolution of Green Building. Home Energy, 21(6) 30-34. Retrieved January 4th, 2006, from Expanded Academ ic ASAP database.

PAGE 229

212 HousingZone.com (2003). The State of Green Building 2003. HousingZone.com: Green Building Forum Retrieved February 9th, 2006, from http://www.housingzone.com/forum-g reen/info/CA488634.html?forum_id=2484 Kats, G., Alevantis, L., Berman, A., Mills, E., & Pearlman, J. (2003). The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings Retrieved on January 15th, 2006, from http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/News477.pdf Kibert, C. (2005). Sustainable Construction Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kwong, B. (2004). Quantifying the Benefits of Sustainable Buildings. 2004 AACE International Transactions RISK.10.1-6. Retrieved December 9th, 2005, from ProQuest database. Matthiessen, L.F., & Morris, P. (2004). Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology Retrieved on December 15th, 2005, from http://www.green-rated.org/uploa ded_files%5Cnews%5C04_Aug_gb_costs.pdf National Association of Homebuilder s (NAHB) Research Center (1999). A Guide To Developing Green Builder Programs Presented to the US EPAs Office of Solid Waste and Office of Policy Develo pment. Retrieved November 15th, 2005, from http://www.nahbrc.org/tertiaryR.asp? TrackID=&CategoryID=1652&DocumentID= 2598 National Association of Homebuilder s (NAHB) Research Center. (2002). Building Greener, Building Better: The Quiet Revolution Retrieved October 25th, 2005, from http://www.nahb.org/fileUpload_details .aspx?contentTypeID=7&contentID=17 Oliver, F. (2005, September). Competing Green. Professional Builder, 70(9) 82-88. Retrieved December 18th, 2005, from ProQuest database. Pasha, S. (2005, November 2). Go Green With Your Mortgage. CNN/Money Retrieved November 5th, 2005, from http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/02/re al_estate/green_mortgages/ Power, M. (2005, February). Raising the Bar. Builder, 28(2) 140-145. Retrieved November 18th, 2005, from ProQuest database. reSource Rethinking Building, Inc. (n.d.). Review of Green Building Guidelines for LowRise Residential Projects in Greater Vancouver Prepared for Greater Vancouver Regional District and Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation. Retrieved December 15th, 2005, from http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/buildsmart/p dfs/lowriseresidfinalrep.pdf Ross, C. (2005). Sustainable Home Building 2.0. Residential Design/Build, 70(8) Retrieved December 29th, 2005, from LexisNexis Academic database.

PAGE 230

213 Schendler, A., & Udall, R. (2005). LEED is Broken . Lets Fix It. Retrieved October 31st, 2005, from http://grist.org/comments/so apbox/2005/10/26/leed/index1.html Seiter, D. (2005). Top Five Reasons Not to Build Green. Environmental Design and Construction, 8(10), 87-88. Retrieved January 4th, 2006, from InfoTrac OneFile database. Sichelman, L. (2005, March). A Splash of Green. Big Builder Retrieved December 3rd, 2005, from http://www.bigbuilderonline.com/industrynews.asp?channelid=261 &articleid =102038&qu=Green Stromberg, M. (2002, December). Hedgewoods Green (R)evolution. Professional Builder, 67(12) 56-67. Retrieved December 20th, 2005, from ProQuest database. Swanson, C., Blasnik, M., & Calhoun, E. (2005). Phoenix Home Energy Efficiency Study. Prepared by Advanced Energy for the US Environmental Protection Agency. Traugott, A. (1999). Green Building De sign = High Performance Building Design. Consulting Specifying Engineer, 25(1) 68-74. Retrieved November 19th, 2005, from ProQuest database. Trulove, J. (2004). Sustainable Homes New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers. Trusty, W.B., & Horst, S. (2002). Integr ating LCA Tools in Green Building Rating Systems. The ATHENA Sustainable Materials Institute Retrieved January 3rd, 2006, from http://www.athenasmi.ca/publications /docs/LCA_Tool_Integr_Paper.pdf Trusty, W.B., & Meil, J.K. (1999). Building Life Cycle Assessment: Residential Case Study. The ATHENA Sustainable Materials Institute Retrieved November 19th, 2005, from http://www.environmentalexpert.com/articles/arti cle1157/ATH_AIA_paper.pdf Tusa, W. (2002). Implementing Green Building Programs. Westchester County Business Journal, 41(40) FC3. Retrieved November 21st, 2005, from General BusinessFile ASAP database. United States Department of Energy (2005A). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 Retrieved March 5th, 2006, from http://www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm United States Department of Energy (2005B ). 3.4.2: "Typical" Construction Waste Estimated for a 2,000-Square-Foot Home. Buildings Energy Data Book Retrieved January 30th, 2006, from http://buildingsdatabook .eere.energy.gov/docs/3.4.2.pdf Wilson, A. (2005). Shades of Green. Environmental Design and Construction, 8(1) 2829. Retrieved November 29th, 2005, from EBSCOhost database.

PAGE 231

214 Yost, P. (2002, March-April). Green Building Programs An Overview. BuildingStandards Retrieved October 29th, 2005, from http://www.buildingscience.com/resources /misc/grreen_building_programs_article. pdf

PAGE 232

215 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH M. Tench Tilghman began his constructi on career working as a carpenter during the spring of 1999, while still in high school. He continued to work as a carpenter during his summers off from studying for his Bachel or of Science in management at the Pennsylvania State University. After receivi ng his first degree, he decided to pursue a Master of Science in Building Constructi on at the University of Florida. Upon completion of this degree, he plans to move to Philadelphia to begin his career in the residential construction industry. He hopes to leverage his practical and academic experiences to become a positive agent for chan ge in the traditionally static homebuilding industry.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014121/00001

Material Information

Title: Constructing a Successful Residential Green Rating Guideline
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014121:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014121/00001

Material Information

Title: Constructing a Successful Residential Green Rating Guideline
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014121:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












CONSTRUCTING A SUCCESSFUL RESIDENTIAL GREEN RATING GUIDELINE


By

M. TENCH TILGHMAN
















A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006





























Copyright 2006

by

M. Tench Tilghman

































This thesis is dedicated to Elizabeth.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I must take the time to thank those in my personal and professional life who have

helped in guiding me to this point. Firstly, I would like to thank my parents for their

continual support and words of encouragement. I would not have made it this far without

them.

Secondly, this thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and advice

that I have received from my committee Dr. Charles Kibert, Dr. Paul Oppenheim and

Dr. Svetlana Olbina.

Finally, a special note of thanks has to be given to Elizabeth. I thank her for being

the one that I can count on for anything. I thank her for being my better half. The road

that lies ahead of us is full of promise, happiness and success.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST O F TA BLE S .......... .. ...... .. .... ................... ............... .... ...... ....... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ....................... .......... ....... ........... xiv

ABSTRACT .............. .......................................... xvi

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

B ack g rou n d ...................................... ............................ ...... ......... ...... .
State ent of the Problem ............................................................................. ........ 2
P u rp o se ........................................................ ........................ 3
Scope and Lim stations ............................................. .............. ....
O v e rv iew .................................................................................. 5

2 LITER A TU R E R EV IEW .............................................................. ...................... 6

Sustainability Principles and Its Significance...............................................6
Other "Green" Options for Sustainable Single-Family Residential Structures............8
General Overview of Residential Green Rating Systems.............................................9
Criteria Selection .................. ............................. ........ ................ .9
A ssessm ent of a Structure .......................................................... .. ............. 11
Participation...................................12
In c e n tiv e s ....................................................................................................... 1 2
V erification M echanism s.................................................... ..............................13
M marketplace A cceptance....................................................................................... 15
Cost Increase Sensitivity .................................. .....................................16
Consum er Green U pgrade Preferences ........................................ ....................20
The B builders' Perspective......................................................... ............... 20
Current Trends and Issues ................................................ .............................. 24
C criteria Selection .................................................................................. 24
Point W fighting ................................................................ .. ...... .. 25
O overall C osts of B building G reen .................................. ..................................... 27
L ife C ycle A ssessm ents........................................... ................. ...............30
Voluntary vs. Mandatory Standards ............ .............................................32


v









C o d e A p p ro v al ............................................................................................... 3 4
Local Factors ......................... ....... ...... .......................... 35
Previous Studies on Residential Green Rating Systems in the U.S..........................37
The Process for Creating a Residential Green Rating System .................................40
C conclusion ...................................................................................................... ....... 43

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................ ................... 45

R atin g S y stem s ..................................................................................................... 4 5
R ating System A analysis ........................................... ................... ............... 47
Core Characteristics.................. ..... ...... ...... .. ...............49
Sustainability Stratification ........................................ ........................... 50
G geographic Stratification ................................................... .... ...........52
F iv e V ariab le S ets............ ............................................................ .. ............54
N um ber of Certified H om es ........................................ .......................... 56
Statistical A analysis Lim itation ........................................ ........................ 56
Rating System Creation Procedure................................... ............................. ....... 57

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................5 9

Residential Green Rating System General Analysis ...............................................59
Types of Rating Systems Analyzed............................ ... ...............59
Core Characteristics.................. ..... ...... ...... .. ...............62
D ate of founding ............................................. .. ...... .. ............ 63
Type of organization ............................................................................. 63
V erification procedures ...................................................... ..... .......... 65
B uilder incentives.......... ........................................ ...... ...... ............ 66
M em bership type .......................................... ...... .. .......... .. ........ .... 67
B u ild er fee s .............................................................6 8
Optional and mandatory program elements ...........................................69
Sustainability Stratification ........................................ ........................... 71
B onus/innovation ................... .............. ............... .... ........72
Builder operations ........................................ ............................... 73
Energy efficiency ................. ...... ............. .. ......... ............ 73
Homeowner education/operation and maintenance (o&m) .......................74
Indoor environmental quality (IEQ)............... ...........................................74
Preexisting standards/codes.................... ...... .......................... 75
Resource/material efficiency .....................................................75
Site planning ......... ......... ............................................ ............... 76
W ater efficiency ............................................ .. .. .. ...... ........... 76
U n iqu e .........................................................................7 7
G geographic Stratification.................. ............. ............ ... .......... 77
Residential Green Rating System Builder Guideline Analysis ................................78
Number of Points and Line Items................................. ...............79
Points-based program s ........................................ ........................... 80
Prescriptive program s...................... .. ............................... ............... 88
Energy guarantee program s...................................... ........................ 91









Number of Minimum Points Required in Each Section............... ...............92
Points-based program s ....................................................... 93
Number of Mandatory Line Items in Each Section........................................101
Points-based program s ........................................ .......................... 101
Prescriptive programs............. ...................... .. ... ............... 107
Energy guarantee programs......................... ................................110
G reen H om e C certification .............. .......... ............... ..............................11
Points required for certification................... .........................112
Number of certified homes yearly data.............................. ...............16
Number of certified homes geographic data.................. ..................121
Analysis in Relation to the Issues and Trends in Residential Green Rating
Sy stem s ................................... ....... .......... .......... ............. ............ 12 3
The Construction of A Successful Residential Green Rating System......................125
The Five Most Successful Rating Systems to Date ................ ................125
Primary Considerations for a Newly Formed Rating System .........................129
Adaptation to the State of Florida ................................................. ............... 132

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. 140

C o n c lu sio n s ................. .... ... .................................................................. 14 0
Recommendations for Further Research ...................................... ............... 141
As-Built Home Environmental Effectiveness Analysis ...................................141
Market Rate Effects of Green Rating Systems .......... ...... .............42
P perception Survey ............ ...................................... .............. .. .... ..... .. 143
R ecom m endation Conclusion........................................................ ............... 144

APPENDIX

A POINTS-BASED PROGRAM DATA ..................... ............... 146

A rlington Green H om e Choice .......................................................... ............... 147
A spen Efficient Building Program ........................................ ........ ............... 149
Austin Energy's Green Building Program ..................................... .................150
B older G reen Points Program .......................................................... ............... 152
B uild San A ntonio G reen ............................................ ........................................ 153
B u ilt G reen C olorado .......... ............................................................ ...... .... .. ... 155
Built G reen Jefferson County ........................................................ ............. 157
Built G reen K ing/Snohom ish Counties ........................................ .....................159
B uilt G reen K itsap C county ............................................... ............................ 161
B uilt G reen O lym pia............ ........................................................ ................. 62
Built Green Pierce County ......................................................... ............... 164
Built Green W hatcom County ............................................................................ 166
Earth A advantage ................................ ...... ............. ...... ........ .. 168
EarthCraft H house .................. ....................................... .. .......... 170
Florida G reen H om e D estination........................................ .......................... 172
Grand R apids Green Built, Inc. ...........................................................................174
Grand Traverse Green Built Program .............................................. ...............176









Green Building in Alam eda County ........................................ ...... ............... 178
H aw aii BuiltG reen .......... ....................... .... .... ........ .... ........... .. 179
Innovative Building Review Program ........................................... ............... 181
L E E D for H om es ......................... .... ..... ...................................... ........ ..... 182
NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines ............................................... 183
North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program ............................... ............... .185
Scottsdale's GREENBUILDING Program ............. ...........................................187
Vermont Builds Greener Program ................................................................ ...... 188
W western North Carolina Healthy Built Hom es....................................................... 189
W isconsin Green Built H om e ........................................................ ............. 191

B PRESCRIPTIVE PROGRAM DATA ..................... ................ 193

AL A H health H house .......................................... .. .. ............... ....... 194
California Green Builder Program ................................................. ............... ... 195
CNM Building A m erica Partner.......................................................... ....... ........ 196
E coB uild Program ............................................ .. .. ............. .. .... .. 197
Frisco Green Building Program ..................................................... ...... ......... 198

C ENERGY GUARANTEE PROGRAM DATA............... .................1.99

APS Perform ance Built H om es ........................................ .......................... 200
E nvironm ents for Living................................................. .............................. 201
TEP Guarantee H om e Program ........................................ .......................... 202

D HISTORICAL AND REGIONAL CERTIFIED HOME DATA.............................204

Certified H om e D ata: A ll 35 Program s ........................................ .....................205
Certified Home Data: 27 Points-Based Programs ....................................... 207
Certified Home Data: Five Prescriptive Programs ...............................................208
Certified Home Data: Three Energy Guarantee Programs.............................. 209

LIST OF REFEREN CES ......... ......... ..... ............... ..................................... 210

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........................................ ............................................215
















LIST OF TABLES


Table pge

2-1 Influences on Environmental Issue Organization and Criteria Selection ................10

2-2 Effects of Rating System Usage........................................................16

2-3 Energy Efficient M mortgage Savings .............................................. ............... 29

2-4 G reen Building Legislative Issues....................................... ......................... 41

2-5 Steps in Developing a Green Builder Program ................................ ............... 43

3-1 R ating System s A nalyzed............................................... .............................. 46

3-2 Rating System Classification M atrix.................................. ......................... 48

3-3 C category N orm alization ........................................ .............................................50

3-4 G geographic R egionalization ........................................................ ............. 52

3-5 Rating Systems Within Each Geographic Region.................................................53

4-1 Types of R eating System s.......................................... ............... ............... 60

4-2 Twenty Five Points-based Systems That Utilized the Sustainability Categories in
T h eir G u id elin es................................................ .................. 8 1

4-3 Percentage of Points and Line Items in Each Category, for the 25 Points-Based
P ro g ra m s .......................................................................... 8 2

4-4 Four Prescriptive Programs Utilizing Sustainability Categories.............................. 88

4-5 Percentage of Total Line Items in Each Category: Four Prescriptive Programs .....89

4-6 Percentage of Line Items in Each Category: Three Energy Guarantee Programs ...91

4-7 Sixteen Points-Based Rating Systems That Specified Minimum Points in Each
C a te g o ry .......................................................................... 9 4

4-8 Points-Based Programs Without Minimum Points Required at All.........................96









4-9 Minimum Points Required in Each Category Based on the Category's Total
Point Value, For All 16 Programs Analyzed............................................... 96

4-10 Minimum Points Required in Each Category Based on the Total Points Possible
in the Entire Rating System, for All 16 Programs Analyzed .................................98

4-11 Minimum Points Required Based on Total Points Possible in the Entire Rating
System, for the Five Programs with Multiple Certification Levels .......................99

4-12 Twenty-two Points-Based Rating Systems That Specified Mandatory Line Items
in E ach C category ................. ........................ .................... .. ...... .. 102

4-13 Points-Based Programs Without Mandatory Line Items at All............................103

4-14 Mandatory Line Items as a Percentage of Line Items in Each Category, for the
22 Points-based Program s ............................................. ............................. 104

4-15 Mandatory Line Items as a Percentage of Total Line Items, for the 22 Points-
B ased P program s.......... ..... ............................................................ .......... ....... 105

4-16 Four Prescriptive Programs that Specified Mandatory Line Items in Each
C ateg ory ........................................................................... 10 8

4-17 Mandatory Line Items as a Percentage of Total Line Items, for the Four
Prescriptive Program s ................................................. ............................... 109

4-18 Certification Levels Offered: Points-Based Systems............................................112

4-19 Percentage of Total Points Possible Needed for Certification for the 27 Points-
B asked P program s .................................................................................. 113

4-20 Percentage Increase in Points Needed to Gain a Higher Certification Level.........114

4-21 Twenty Three Programs With Annual Certification Data .................................... 116

4-22 Programs Without Certification Data................. ...............................................120

4-23 Successful Program Home Certification Data ............................. ................ 126

4-24 Successful Rating System Flexibility ...........................................................127

4-25 Successful Program Systems Thinking ..............................................................128

4-26 P process G uide Sum m ary ............................................................. .....................137

A-1 Arlington Green Home Choice Core Characteristics, Point Structure and
C certified H om e D ata ...................................................................... ..................147









A-2 Aspen Efficient Building Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ................................................................... ..................... 14 9

A-3 Austin Energy's Green Building Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet
and Certified Home Data....... ....... .. ......... ........ ............... ............... 150

A-4 Boulder Green Points Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ...................................................................... ..................152

A-5 Build San Antonio Green Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified
H om e D ata.................. .. ....... .................................... ......................... 153

A-6 Built Green Colorado Core Characteristics, Points Worksheet Configuration and
C certified H om e D ata ...................................................................... ..................155

A-7 Built Green Jefferson County Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ...................................................................... ..................157

A-8 Build Green King/Snohomish Counties Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet
and C certified H om e D ata......................................................................... .... .... 159

A-9 Built Green Kitsap County Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified
H o m e D a ta ...................................... .............................................. 1 6 1

A-10 Built Green Olympia Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home
D a ta ............................................................................ 1 6 2

A-11 Built Green Pierce County Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified
H o m e D ata ...................................... .............................................. 16 4

A-12 Built Green Whatcom County Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ...................................................................... ..................166

A-13 Earth Advantage Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home
D a ta ............................................................................ 1 6 8

A-14 EarthCraft House Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home
D a ta ............................................................................ 1 7 0

A-15 Florida Green Home Designation Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ...................................................................... ..................172

A-16 Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc. Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ...................................................................... ..................174

A-17 Grand Traverse Green Built Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ................................................................... ..................... 176









A-18 Green Building in Alameda County Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ...................................................................... ..................178

A-19 Hawaii BuiltGreen Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home
D a ta ............................................................................ 1 7 9

A-20 Innovative Building Review Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ...................................................................... ..................18 1

A-21 LEED for Homes Core Characteristics, Points Worksheet Configuration and
C certified H om e D ata ...................................................................... ..................182

A-22 NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines Core Characteristics, Points
Worksheet Configuration and Certified Home Data.............................................183

A-23 North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program Core Characteristics, Point
Worksheet and Certified Home Data ........................................... ...............185

A-24 Scottsdale's GREENBUILDING Program Core Characteristics, Point
Worksheet and Certified Home Data ............................................................187

A-25 Vermont Builds Greener Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ...................................................................... ..................188

A-26 Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes Core Characteristics, Point
Worksheet and Certified Home Data ............................................................189

A-27 Wisconsin Green Built Home Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ...................................................................... ..................19 1

B-1 ALA Health House Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home
D a ta ............................................................................ 1 9 4

B-2 California Green Builder Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ...................................................................... ..................195

B-3 CNM Building America Partner Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ...................................................................... ..................196

B-4 EcoBuild Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified Home
D a ta ............................................................................ 1 9 7

B-5 Frisco Green Building Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ...................................................................... ..................198

C-1 APS Performance Built Homes Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ........................................... .................. ............... 200









C-2 Environments for Living Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and Certified
H om e D ata ........................................................................2 02

C-3 TEP Guarantee Home Program Core Characteristics, Point Worksheet and
C certified H om e D ata ........................................... ................. ............... 203

D-1 Certified Home Data 1991 to February of 2006, All Programs..........................206

D-2 Points-Based Program Certified Home Data 1991 to February of 2006.............208

D-3 Prescriptive Program Certified Home Data 1991 February of 2006...............209

D-4 Energy Guarantee Program Certified Home Data 1991 February of 2006......210
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pge

2-1 Consumer Willingness-to-Pay Based on Cost and Return: Adapted.....................17

2-2 Consumer Willingness-to-Pay vs. Capital Cost Recovery: Adapted .....................18

2-3 Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for "Soft" Benefits: Adapted ...................................18

2-4 How Much Consumers are Willing to Pay for Green Upgrades Their
Perspective vs. a B builders Perspective ........................................ .....................19

2-5 Consumer Upgrade Preferences: Adapted .................................... ............... 21

2-6 Sustainable Upgrades: Consumer Demand vs. Builder Perception: Adapted.........21

4-1 R ating System Start U p Y ear ........................................................................ ..... 63

4-2 Organizational Type .................. ............................ ........ ................. 65

4-3 V erification P rocedures......................................... .............................................66

4-4 Incentives to B uilders.......................................................................... ............... 67

4-5 M em bership Type ...................... ...................... ................... ........ 68

4-6 F ees C charged to B builders .............................................................. .....................69

4-7 Com m on Optional Elem ents .............................................................................. 70

4-8 Com m on Required Elem ents .............................................................................71

4-9 Percentage of Programs in Each Region ............................................................78

4-10 Average Percentage of Total Points and Total Line Items By Category for the 25
Points-B ased Program s ................................................. ............................... 84

4-11 Average Percentage of Total Points Possible by Category and Region for the 25
Points-B ased Program s ................................................. ............................... 86

4-12 Average Percentage of Total Line Items by Category and Region for the 25
P oints-B asked P program s ................................................................. .....................87









4-13 Average Percentage of Total Line Items by Category: Four Prescriptive
P ro g ra m s ............ .................................................................... 9 0

4-14 Average Percentage of Total Line Items by Category Three Prescriptive
Program s (w /o Frisco) .............................................................................90

4-15 Average Percentage of Total Line Items by Category: Three Energy Guarantee
Program s..................................... .......................... ..... ..... ........ 92

4-16 Average Minimum Points-based on the Category's Total Possible Points For All
16 Points-B ased Program s .............................................. ............................. 97

4-17 Average Percentage of Minimum Points Required Based on Total Points
Possible for All 16 Programs Analyzed .........................................................99

4-18 Average Percentage of Minimum Points Required for the Five Programs with
M multiple Certification Levels ...........................................................................100

4-19 Average Percent of Mandatory Line Items in Each Category for 22 Points-Based
Program s................................... ................................. .......... 104

4-20 Average Percentage of Mandatory Line Items Based on the Total Number of
Line Items for the 22 Points-Based Programs............................................106

4-21 Total Percentage of Line Items That Are Mandatory for 23 Points-Based
Program s (Including Scottsdale) ................................. ............................... ...... 107

4-22 Average Percentage of Total Line Items That Are Mandatory, by Category, For
the Four Prescriptive Program s .................................. ............................... ....... 109

4-23 Average Percentage of Points Needed for Certification .............. ................. 114

4-24 Average Percentage of Points Needed to Gain a Higher Certification Level ........ 116

4-25 Annual Certification Data All 23 Program s..........................................................117

4-26 Annual Certification for Points-Based and Prescriptive Programs ........................118

4-27 Number of Certified Homes by the Three Types of Programs as of February
2 0 0 6 ......................................... ....... ..................... ................ 1 2 0

4-28 Number of Certified Homes Based on the Geographic Regions .........................122

5-1 R ating System Success Tiers....................................................... ............... 145
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction

CONSTRUCTING A SUCCESSFUL RESIDENTIAL GREEN RATING GUIDELINE

By

M. Tench Tilghman

May 2006

Chair: Charles J. Kibert
Cochair: Paul Oppenheim
Major Department: Building Construction

Environmental issues have been an increasing concern for the construction industry

over the past two decades. Historically, the industry has been marked by generations of

static means and methods, which have resulted in an inordinate amount of negative

impacts on the planet's natural systems. Fortunately, a recent wave of green building

rating systems has appeared to combat this problem, especially within the residential

sector.

Since 1991, there has been approximately 35 different residential green rating

systems introduced in the U.S. The programs offer homebuilders cohesive procedural

guidelines for constructing an environmentally friendly home by offering a range of

criteria across a few key categories. Typically, the guidelines address construction

practices that are intended to improve a home's energy efficiency, resource efficiency,

water efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and site planning impacts. The









overarching goal of these programs is to facilitate the improvement of the residential built

environment.

The purpose of this research is to quantitatively examine the various structures that

the residential green rating systems have employed in their builder guidelines, in order to

determine their similarities or differences. Subsequently, these findings will be utilized

to determine success indicators for residential green rating systems. Once this analysis is

complete, this study will present a model that outlines the process for creating a new

residential green standard in the state of Florida. This model will be underpinned by the

various issues that currently surround existing rating systems, which will help to ensure

long-term success of a newly formed program.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Background

The construction industry in the U.S. currently consumes three billion tons of raw

materials on an annual basis, which is over 90% of the total material resource

consumption in this country (Tusa, 2002). According to the United States Department of

Energy, the construction of a typical 2,000 square foot home will result in 8,000 pounds

of construction waste being generated, not to mention the large quantities of raw

materials that must be displaced during the extraction and manufacturing processes of the

materials (United States Department of Energy, 2005B). Furthermore, America's

housing sector represents 36% of the nation's electricity demand, which is expected to

increase by 39% during the first decade of this century (Swanson et al., 2005). Finally,

modern building practices, coupled with synthetic material advances, have also resulted

in diminished indoor environmental quality in newly constructed homes, which has the

potential to contribute to health issues such as allergies or asthma (American Lung

Association, N.D.).

Unfortunately, the aforementioned statistics are only a miniscule snapshot of the

issues our natural systems are facing because of the construction industry's practices.

While there are too many issues to list in this brief introduction, many environmental

leaders have recognized that our society's sustainable future hinges upon improving the

construction of structures, thereby resulting in a less harmful and more resource efficient

built environment.









Statement of the Problem

Residential construction in the United States has been marked by generations of

static building practices, with widespread skepticism and resistance to any changes in

methods, materials or procedures. Material advances have been modest at best; those that

have been accepted by the industry typically foster greater productivity while reducing

costs, such as replacing tongue and groove sheathing with sheets of plywood.

Unfortunately, these risk-adverse attitudes have caused the construction and operation of

the average American house to unnecessarily waste natural resources and energy, thus

contributing to our global environmental problems.

The net result of the inefficient construction standards that have dominated the

homebuilding industry are leaving our descendants with many burdens: land has been

degraded, water supplies are running dangerously low in many regions of the country,

energy use is unwavering in the face of record prices and certain raw materials are

becoming scarce. These impacts are in direct contradiction to the ideals of sustainability,

which hinges upon protecting future generations by enacting provisions, standards,

protocols or controls on activities associated with limited or life-essential resources.

In order to evoke a change toward greener building practices in the residential

construction sector, there has to be a relatively simple approach to generate demand for

an environmentally friendly product. It can be inferred that the intrinsic benefits derived

from green building would not, in and of themselves, have the ability to spark a

widespread consumer-based desire to purchase a green home. The only way to generate

the type of demand that is needed to ensure long-term viability of green building

initiatives is to address traditional consumer concerns, such as lower operating costs.









Fortunately, the residential construction industry has adopted a model for green

construction demand stimulation, which revolves around rating guidelines. These

guidelines serve as a method to standardize and ensure exemplary environmental

performance over a number of criteria. These criteria typically focus on energy, water

and material usage; site development; indoor environmental quality; durability and

maintenance; and homeowner education. Most of the rating systems will designate the

home as being environmentally, and therefore economically, sound, which in turn serves

to stimulate demand. This practice has resulted in appreciated market values for many of

the homes built according to the various rating guidelines, which is a primary indicator of

success (Cole et al., 2005).

Currently, there are approximately 35 different green rating systems for

homebuilding throughout the country, which have evolved throughout this country for

over 15 years. However, many of them have been developed in the past 5 years as a

result of the environmental construction movement that is sweeping all sectors of

construction. These guidelines serve to guide builders in constructing a home that is

more environmentally sensitive using the aforementioned criteria. Most of the existing

green assessment tools are local in scope, voluntary in nature, and provide certification

based on a point driven system.

Purpose

The purpose of this study will be to analyze the various rating systems that exist

throughout the country in a quantitative manner, in order to determine any similarities or

differences that exist between them. Subsequently, the rating systems will be compared

against one another in an attempt to discover which attributes may contribute to their









success or shortcoming. Finally, this study will culminate in outlaying a process that will

define how to create a successful green rating system, specifically for the state of Florida.

The overriding goal of this research is to differentiate between the green residential

construction standards that exist throughout the country in order to determine what

factors may be the most important in their success, so that the process of creating a rating

system can be definitively developed. The final process that will be outlined will provide

a basic model for standard creation by providing a framework of importance; it will not

attempt to create an environmental standard from scratch.

Scope and Limitations

This study's primary analysis will be focused on green rating systems that exist for

new single-family home construction. While there are many other standards throughout

the U.S. for other types of structures (commercial, multi-family, etc) and other modes of

construction (renovation, site planning, etc), this study will not specifically analyze these

standards in a quantitative manner. Additionally, the scope of this research was based on

the residential rating systems that are located in the United States, mainly because they

all contain overarching similarities that provide a means for comparison. However, some

of the literature that will be reviewed in Chapter 2 is focused on other types of rating

systems both in the U.S. and abroad, because parallels can be drawn between studies of

rating systems with contrasting scopes. Finally, this study's intention is only to analyze

the green rating systems based on their composition to determine some of the generalities

that exist between them, so that a model of success can be created. It is outside of this

study's scope to try and determine how effective the rating systems are on an

environmental level.









Overview

In Chapter 2, a comprehensive literature review will be conducted in order to

discover the prevailing opinions of the research in this field. Information that will be

reviewed will consist of: the residential rating systems, reports on problems associated

with green rating systems, reports on the benefits associated with green rating systems,

and information relating to the creation of a rating standard. Chapter 3 will outline the

methodology for the remainder of this study, which will largely rely on analyzing the

residential green rating systems that are currently in place around the country. The

standards will be broken down based on their builder guidelines, so that conclusions can

be drawn about the commonalities that exist between them. Additionally, information

regarding the number of homes that each standard has rated will also be analyzed.

Chapter 4 will communicate this study's findings. Each rating standard will be

categorized based on the data that was analyzed. Additionally, this information will

provide the catalyst for determining success for a residential green rating system.

Therefore, the final portion of this chapter will consist of a process guide, which intends

to serve as a methodology for creating a successful green rating system for the state of

Florida. Finally, Chapter 5 will offer conclusions and recommendations for future

research that this thesis was not able to achieve, and the various appendices will show all

of the raw data that was used throughout the analysis.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The first modem "green" building rating system, the Building Research

Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), was developed in

England 18 years ago (Kibert, 2005). Since that time, there have been many debates

about the content, practicality, effectiveness and utilization of environmental building

rating systems. Many of these discussions have been sparked over the past six years,

because there has been a virtual plethora of rating systems entering the marketplace for

single-family homes. Additionally, in the commercial construction sector, there has been

a huge spike in rating system usage since the turn of the century, which has also been a

catalyst for debate.

The purpose of this chapter is to comprehensively examine the various opinions

that have been published regarding green rating systems to discover what the current

positions are in the academic, professional and public arenas. Some of the research

reviewed will cover green rating systems that deal with structures other than single-

family homes, such as the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design for New Construction (LEED-NC), simply because a thorough

analysis warrants their inclusion. Also, some of the information contained herein stems

directly from the various residential rating systems that were reviewed for this thesis.

Sustainability Principles and Its Significance

One of the lynchpins of a green rating system is the concept of sustainability, which

has a history of being slightly ambiguous and misconstrued. According to the World









Commission on Environment and Development, sustainability can be succinctly defined

as being able to "meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs" (Kwong, 2004). This definition clearly states that

modern society has a current obligation to its successors. Inherently difficulty to

quantify, this duty is one that is enormously broad in scope, with issues that could

include: finite natural resources, fiscal mechanisms, social programs, waste disposal,

agricultural practices, etc. In other words, the concept of sustainability encompasses

three expansive dimensions: environmental, economic and social (Cole, 2003). In the

context of the construction industry, however, the goals of sustainability can be pared

into workable objectives.

The green rating systems that have been adopted over the past two decades were

produced in response to the need for a quantitative methodology for producing structures

that adhere to the concepts of sustainability. Although it is difficult, if not impossible, to

categorically evaluate a building along the three dimensions of sustainability, green rating

systems certainly offer a promising start towards trailblazing a sustainable built

environment. Although their current locus of concentration is primarily on the

environmental branch of sustainability, it can be argued that green buildings offer a

greater economic future while educating society about the impacts that the construction

industry is having on our natural systems.

Within the built environment, there are certain identifiable methods and processes

for "greening" a building; which is why many of the rating systems have rating sections

that mirror one another. More specifically, the nearly universal categories of rating

systems generally include: site selection, energy use, water conservation, sustainable









materials, and occupant health (Gunshinan, 2004). By using these categories, green

rating systems transform a design goal of sustainability into a feasible format by

providing specific performance objectives and criteria (Gowri, 2004). Therefore, it is

logical assumption that one of the overriding goals of a green rating system is to provide

a means to achieving the lofty goal of sustainability in the built environment.

Other "Green" Options for Sustainable Single-Family Residential Structures

It is now evident that sustainability is one of the primary goals of any green rating

system, whether it is in the context of single-family residential structures or other types of

buildings. However, there are other methods available to attain a more sustainable future

within the residential built environment.

One of the concepts of sustainable home construction revolves around creating a

structure based entirely on the theories of natural systems. This concept is one that

typically utilizes modern architectural ideals to create a home that is more in harmony

with its surroundings. For instance, in Sustainable Homes, Trulove provides an example

of a home that uses "found" materials for its construction, such as used automobile

license plates for siding and reclaimed redwood for sheathing (Trulove, 2004). Similarly,

Chiras provides a design guide in The Natural House for creating homes made out of

alternative materials such as straw bale, rammed earth and cordwood (firewood) (Chiras,

2000).

There are many design guides and resources available for building homes that are

based heavily on natural systems and materials. While these concepts may indeed

contribute to the goals of sustainable construction, the reality is that many of these types

of designs may never gain mainstream market acceptance. The typical homebuyer

generally does not perceive value in purely ecological architectural techniques; buyers









can be as risk adverse as the construction industry. Therefore, residential green rating

systems offer the best alternative to "natural homes" in the homebuilding industry

because they offer a way to produce a traditional-looking home that is environmentally

friendly (Oliver, 2005).

General Overview of Residential Green Rating Systems

In 1991, the first residential green rating system was created in Austin, TX, under

the auspices of the local utility company, Austin Energy. This progressive program

served the prototypical stimulus for residential rating systems nationwide. Consequently,

the 1990s saw approximately ten other rating systems spring up around the country, with

roughly 25 additional systems being developed in the first half of the 2000s. Therefore,

the proverbial stage has been set for rating systems in the residential market. Many of

these programs are attempting to act as transformational agents in their local jurisdiction,

municipality or region; the need for sustainable construction practices has been realized.

Although there has been significant progress made towards green rating systems in

the past 15 years, the definition of a "green building" remains somewhat of an enigma.

Unequivocally, a green building is energy and resource efficient, waste and pollutant

conscious, adaptable for longevity purposes, durable, and a healthy structure (Traugott,

1999). The remainder of this section will analyze how green rating systems accomplish

these objectives, and what their other predominant goals are.

Criteria Selection

As previously stated, there are generally five key aspects of any green rating system

as it relates to its environmental goals, which are site selection, energy efficiency, water

efficiency, material efficiency and indoor environmental quality. The general procedure

in which rating systems meet their environmental goals is to divide their objectives into









related categories, and then to offer a range of criteria within each category. Therefore,

the rating systems serve as guides to homebuilders in how to create a structure that is

cumulatively "greener". The various categories and options are based on the broad range

of existing knowledge relating to the environmental impacts of construction (Cole et al.,

2005). Therefore, when a rating system is created, the general procedure is to draw up

the system based on the criteria that best suits its environmental goals, which relies on the

incorporation of research that has proven them to be successful.

According to Cole, the range of environmental issues that could be addressed by

any single rating system is absolutely enormous. Therefore, it is very important to

organize them into a cohesive, useful framework that will foster successful design

initiatives while selecting criteria that make assessments realistic. This is influenced by

issues such as practicality and cost, which tend to drive decisions in the early planning

phases of a rating system. Additionally, internal issues for the rating system

administrators also have an impact on their criteria selection, such as their level of

agreement on a specific criterions effectiveness. Finally, the assessments that are made

by the rating systems must be repeatable and understandable for them to be useful in the

marketplace (Cole, 1998). His four main influences on environmental issue organization

and criteria selection are summarized in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Influences on Environmental Issue Organization and Criteria Selection
1. Practicality and cost of making the assessment itself
2. Ability to make repeat assessments with the same results
3. Whether the assessment creators had an overall agreement to its criteria
4. Ability of its users to fully comprehend the assessment's results
(Cole, 1998)









Assessment of a Structure

One of the paramount functions of green rating systems is to offer some sort of

certification for the projects that complete their programs. This certification verifies

compliance with the rating system, and most frequently results in some sort of overall

score being given to a structure (Cole, 2001). Similarly, green rating systems have two

main methods in which they make their final determination of how environmentally

friendly a structure is. These methods are: a system with a score based on points, or a

system with prescriptive requirements. A points based system is one that offers many

possible alternatives to a prospective builder, who can choose from a range of options to

accumulate the required number of points for certification. Often, however, points based

systems will also contain required criteria that cannot be excluded for any reason. On the

other hand, a prescriptive system usually dictates specific methods for achieving

certification. These systems often describe specific, quantitative performance levels that

must be attained in order to pass the program (Cole, 2001).

There are two distinct views that relate to the prescriptive versus point debate.

Those who argue for a prescriptive system often suggest that they allow for a more

"systems" based approach to homebuilding. Essentially, this means that a prescriptive

program has built in controls to ensure that a home will perform to a high level, because

there are specific criteria outlaid to achieve certification. On the other hand, proponents

of points based systems will argue that they offer a degree of flexibility that is essential to

builder acceptance of the programs. Because they offer a wide range of options to a

builder, the belief is that they will be more willing to adopt these programs based upon

the freedoms they offer.









Regardless of a system's assessment method, another feature common to rating

systems is that various levels of certification are often offered. A multi-tiered

certification enables the rating organization to distinguish between structures that have

gone beyond the minimum requirements for certification (Cole, 1998). Layered

certification processes can be found in both prescriptive and points-based programs.

Prescriptive programs will most often contain a larger amount of criteria for those homes

that strive to achieve higher certification levels. Conversely, points-based programs

typically require a greater number of points to be attained for their higher levels.

However, some of the residential rating systems do not contain multiple levels of

certification; they simply provide a single certification category.

Participation

As with structure assessments, there are two main ways in which a green rating

system can achieve participation from the construction industry. Most of the residential

rating systems throughout the U.S. have chosen to make their programs voluntary, while

a handful of jurisdictions have decided to make their green programs mandatory.

Voluntary programs have the distinct disadvantage that they must satisfy conflicting

goals; they need to achieve market and industry acceptance while being able to remain

credible to environmental activists (Cole, 1998). However, mandatory programs often

face fierce resistance from builders, who fear increased costs through code forced

specifications (Ross, 2005). This topic will be developed further in the "Current Trends

and Issues" section of the literature review.

Incentives

A handful of the residential green rating systems have implemented incentive

systems to increase their market penetration rates. Typically, the programs that are either









administered by local utilities or municipalities offer these incentives, and they are

usually non-monetary enticements for the builders who decide to use their systems.

Some common examples of the incentives that are offered include: expedited permitting,

reduced permitting fees, utility rebates and other types of preferential treatment.

Additionally, marketing support and builder education are some other tertiary incentives

that most of the programs will offer around the country. Moreover, many municipalities

have been offering incentives to commercial projects for complying with their

sustainability initiatives. These incentives mirror the examples that were discussed in

this section, and they aim to foster greater participation from the construction industry

(Building Design and Construction, 2004).

Besides rating system driven builder incentives, there are a few programs offered to

homebuyers that have helped to increase market demand for green homes. Most often,

these programs come in the form of federal or state tax credits, such as the ones under the

Energy Policy Act. These tax credits are available to consumers who purchase an Energy

Star rated home or install energy efficiency features, such as solar panels. Accordingly,

there are tax credits available for homebuilders that participate in the Energy Star New

Home program, and also for the installation of individual efficient building components

such as windows, roofing, insulation and HVAC systems (United States Department of

Energy, 2005A). Chapter 4 and the appendices also contain more information on this

topic, relative to the residential green rating systems that were reviewed for this report.

Verification Mechanisms

One final aspect of residential green rating systems is the process by which they

verify that the homebuilder has actually built the home according to the specifications of

the rating system. While this information could not be found in any of the published









literature that was reviewed, there was an extensive amount available on this topic from

the rating system guidelines. They indicate that there are three main ways that

verification is accomplished, and the various rating systems approach this concept

differently.

One of the simplest ways in which verification occurs is simply through self-

certification. Under this method, a builder will sign an affidavit that they have built the

home according to the rating standard. Usually, they will be required to submit

verification paperwork that outlays the green options that they have chosen, which is

most often a checklist or point system. Another method for verification involves

inspections, which is usually conducted by the administrators of the rating system. A

designated representative will visit the home during various phases of construction to

perform a visual inspection of the home, in order to determine if the builder has followed

the conditions outlaid by the green rating system. The third and final way to verify that a

home has been built according to the green specifications is to have independent third

parties actually inspect and/or test the homes for compliance. This method often includes

various testing protocols, such as a blower door test, to further confirm that the home is

up to the rating standard's performance expectations.

As previously mentioned, many of the different rating systems will approach

verification differently. Some rating systems exclusively utilize one of the three

methods; other rating systems will use a combination of the three methods. Additionally,

for those rating systems that have multiple levels of certification (such as 1-5 stars), they

will often use stricter verification procedures for those homes that are attempting to









achieve a higher level of certification. Chapter 4 will discuss the procedures that the

different residential green rating systems have adopted.

At this point in the study, the rating systems and their various features have been

introduced. The next portion of this chapter will look at the level of success they are

having in their various marketplaces, which is crucial to the viability of any residential

rating system.

Marketplace Acceptance

Until now, this report has focused mostly on the issues of sustainability and how

they relate to residential green rating systems. However, this study would not be

complete if it did not include a fundamental element of rating system existence:

marketplace acceptance. If homebuyers or homebuilders do not perceive rating systems

as being worthwhile, it is more than likely that they would cease to exist. Fortunately,

surveys have indicated that green rating systems are slowly beginning to gain market

demand in their various locations (Grosskopf, 2003; HousingZone.com, 2003;

GreenBiz.com, 2005). One such survey, which was conducted by the Corporate Realty

Design and Management Institute, discovered that green building success is largely a

function of the local market. According to the survey, the markets that embrace the ideas

of green buildings are typically the ones that have large corporations that understand and

adopt environmentally friendly construction procedures. Furthermore, it was discovered

that many of the major metropolitan areas in this country are highly in-tune with the

growing green building phenomenon, such as Los Angeles, Seattle, Washington D.C,

Phoenix and Boston (GreenBiz.com, 2005).

Cole et al. argue that the recent success that green rating systems have been

enjoying can be attributed to one of two factors: either the building industry is becoming









more proactive towards creating change or the industry is simply responding to market

demand (Cole et al., 2005). However, it is likely that their recent success can be

attributed to a mix of the former and the latter, as many data sets have indicated.

Nonetheless, Cole has identified the six main effects that the rating system's widespread

usage and organizational patterns have on green building. These effects directly correlate

to the market success of the green rating systems, and many of the effects also relate to

the industry's paramount environmental issues. For example, the proliferation of rating

systems has created a common set of environmental criteria, which in turn allows for

greater effectiveness through improved communication between all stakeholders,

including buyers (Cole, 1998). The other key results of this study are summarized in

Table 2-2.

Table 2-2: Effects of Rating System Usage
1. Provided a common and verifiable set of criteria and targets
2. Lowered operating, financing and insurance costs; increased marketability
3. Properties can stay current within a dynamic marketplace
4. Future tenants will have benefits communicated to them
5. Building owners and design teams have formulated effective environmental strategies
6. A body of knowledge and expertise has been created
(Cole, 1998)

Cost Increase Sensitivity

Dr. Kevin Grosskopf conducted a study that intended to discover what the

consumers in the U.S. were willing to pay for green alternatives in their homes. It was

determined that, on average, consumers were most interested in the alternatives that have

a high initial cost and a corresponding high return-on-investment. Also, the savings-to-

investment ratio and the maximum return-on-investment are other key indicators for

willingness to pay. In other words, consumers are willing pay greater up front prices for

the alternatives that will quickly repay their investments and continue to save them










money in the long run. Finally, his study found that the majority (60%) of consumers are

at least somewhat driven by "soft," or intrinsic, cost benefits that the installation of green

alternatives can foster. In fact, these consumers indicated that they would choose to

install soft cost-benefit alternatives, even if they will not completely return the added

investment over the item's life cycle (Grosskopf, 2003). Please refer to figures 2-1, 2-2

and 2-3 for a graphical representation of his findings.










60'.. [] Low Cost, Low Retum
50 '.. 0 Medium Cost, Medium Retum
40 High Cost, High Return
30 ..
20'..
10'..
0 ..
Windows Water HVAC


Figure 2-1: Consumer Willingness-to-Pay Based on Cost and Return: Adapted
(Grosskopf, 2003)

Supplemental studies have also examined green alternative cost premiums on a

quantitative level. Professional Builder magazine conducted a random survey of recent

homebuyers and various builders in 2003; the organization acquired the sample contact

information from an independent third party. Overall, 334 homebuyers and 317

homebuilders responded to email requests to complete the survey. The study found that

homebuyers and homebuilders have different perceptions on how much consumers are

willing to spend for green upgrades, in terms of actual dollar amounts. According to the












35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

-5%

-10%


Increased Time Until Capital Cost Recovery (Years)



Figure 2-2: Consumer Willingness-to-Pay vs. Capital Cost Recovery: Adapted
(Grosskopf, 2003)


1003..

903..

803.- 1980..

703..
E Very Likely
60.. EIO Likely
510 80.. O Neither
5 Unlikely
403. I Very Unlikely

303..

203..

103..


Solar Fuel Cells Ultra HPs



Figure 2-3: Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for "Soft" Benefits: Adapted (Grosskopf,
2003)


1.5 2










survey, homebuilders tend to underestimate how much consumers will spend on green

alternatives, which is shown in Figure 2-4 (HousingZone.com, 2003). It should be noted

that the figures that depict information from the Professional Builder survey contain data

from 2000, 2001 and 2003, which correspond to the years that this survey was given.


How Much Extra Will Buyers Spend on Green Features?

$5,000
$4,500
$4,000 -
$3,500 -
$3,000 -
$2,500 VVhat Builders Say
SWVVhat Buyers Say
$2,000 -
$1,500 -
$1,000
$500
$0


Figure 2-4: How Much Consumers are Willing to Pay for Green Upgrades Their
Perspective vs. a Builders Perspective (HousingZone.com, 2003)

Therefore, it seems evident that consumers in the U.S. are willing to spend a

significant amount of money on green upgrades for their homes, providing that the

upgrade will be a good long-term investment or offer deeply intrinsic values.

Additionally, it appears as though homebuilders have underestimated the potential for the

marketplace to accept high-cost green alternatives. The next section of this study will

analyze what green features buyers are most interested in.


2000 2001


2003









Consumer Green Upgrade Preferences

The Professional Builder Magazine survey also found some interesting trends in

consumer preferences relating to green upgrades. The survey found that the upgrades

buyers most desired in a new home are not luxury based items, but rather those that

increase energy efficiency. When the respondents were asked which upgrades are most

important to them, they categorically chose energy efficiency, which is depicted in Figure

2-5 (HousingZone.com, 2003). Unfortunately, however, this study also found that there

is a disconnect between the importance that homebuyers place on green upgrades and

what that the builders believe the consumers want, which is displayed in Figure 2-6.

More specifically, only 70% of homebuilders surveyed believed that energy efficiency

upgrades are very important to homebuyers, while 92% of the surveyed buyers indicated

that they are very important. Therefore, according to the survey, it seems as though

homebuyers and homebuilder currently have different expectations when it comes to

environmentally friendly upgrade preferences and their corresponding costs. However,

the studies also indicate that homebuyers are ready to incorporate green features into their

homes. The next section of this report will examine the builder's perspective on green

building.

The Builders' Perspective

In order for any green rating systems to be successful, they must generate a

significant amount of market demand. However, if the market demands are going to be

satisfied, it is imperative for the construction professionals to be willing to adopt the

rating systems. Therefore, there are two distinct ways in which the green rating system

demands can be met: consumers can "pull" builders into the systems through their wants,

or builders can "push" the rating systems onto their buyers by proliferating them. Either













Three Most Important Things When Buying a New House


Energy-Efficient 8
Features


Kitchen Cabinet Upgrade


Improved Indoor Air c'
Quality
2000
Finished Room in200
2001
Basement 2
O 2003

Exterior Trim Upgrade


Jacuzzi Tub


Recycled-Content '9,"'-
Products




Figure 2-5: Consumer Upgrade Preferences: Adapted (HousingZone.com, 2003)


(HousingZone.com, 2003)2000
Improved Ar Quality E Y. i Improved Air Quality 2001I



Resource Conserving Resource Conse-ng
Features Features ,



Figure 2-6: Sustainable Upgrades: Consumer Demand vs. Builder Perception: Adapted

(HousingZone.com, 2003)


scenario, or a combination of both, will result in rising usage patterns of residential green


rating systems.


Fortunately, a study that was conducted by Building Design and Construction in


2003 found that construction professionals have an increasing awareness about the


ExtremelylVery Important Features in a New Home (Asked of
Consumers)


Energy-Efficient
Features


ExtremelyNery Important Features in a New Home (Asked of
Builders)


Energy-Eficient
Features
iI ,30









principles of green building. Their study included a survey of 498 of their readers, which

represented a multitude of disciplines within in the construction industry including:

commercial and residential contractors, design firms, developers, etc. Overall, their study

found that 97% of their respondents saw the green building phenomenon as growing.

Additionally, 81% of the respondents stated that they had experience or interest in

sustainable design (Cassidy, 2003). Therefore, there is evidence that the green building

movement is gaining recognition by construction professionals, which is essential to its

success.

As previously stated, there is the potential for builders to "push" green rating

systems onto their clients. While evidence has shown that consumer demand is currently

acting as the catalyst for green home construction, there are numerous methods in which

a "pushing" procedure can be carried out, and consumer education is one of the most

powerful tools available (Wilson, 2005; Dooley and Rivera, 2004). More specifically, a

focused marketing campaign that details the benefits of owning a green structure can

have astounding effects on a potential buyer. On the most basic level, there is a

consensus that the most effective way to market a green home is to advertise it as a

"money saver" (Power, 2005; BizEd, 2005; Oliver, 2005; Stromberg, 2002; Dooley and

Rivera, 2004). If a consumer can be shown data that indicates that the increased cost of

green alternatives will be offset by monthly utility bill savings, most buyers would be

willing to consider installing the features.

In addition to potential cost savings, there are other benefits of a green home that

should be communicated to a prospective buyer. Indoor air quality improvements, water

and resource efficiencies, increased durability, and reduced maintenance are just some of









the highlights that many builders choose to emphasize (Stromberg, 2002). Some builders

also emphasize more intangible, intrinsic benefits to their buyers, such as: reduced

dependence on foreign fossil fuels, minimizing the amount of air pollution generated by

their home, etc (Power, 2005).

Builders need to begin realizing that the green home market is growing throughout

the country. As more local organizations decide to include a residential green rating

system in their area, the demand for green homes is certain to increase. Therefore, the

builders also need to be properly educated on environmentally friendly homes and the

benefits that they can bring to their company and their reputation. Generally speaking,

most of the financial advantages that green homes offer consumers also directly translate

into better built, more comfortable homes with reduced maintenance requirements

(Power, 2005; BizEd, 2005, November/December). These types of advantages not only

benefit consumers, but they also benefit builders by offering niche marketing,

differentiation opportunities and reduced "call backs" (Alameda County Waste

Management Authority, 2003; Oliver, 2005).

The preceding section of this report analyzed market issues that surround

residential green rating systems. It was discovered that consumers have a high demand

for energy efficiency in their homes, but builders tend to underestimate this fact.

Additionally, builders need to begin realizing the marketing potential that green homes

present. The next section of this thesis will analyze some of the current trends and issues

as they relate to residential green rating systems, and the potential impacts they have on

them.









Current Trends and Issues

The aforementioned section of this thesis provided evidence that green construction

is gaining steam in the marketplace. Regardless of this fact, there are still numerous

issues that revolve around the green rating systems and their use. There have been

numerous critiques written that focus on the structure, theory, implementation and

purpose of the green rating systems. Additionally, one of the critical stigmas that still

haunt green rating systems is that building a green home is too expensive. These issues

will be reviewed in this section of the report, which will be crucial to the results and

conclusions that are generated in further chapters of this study.

Criteria Selection

As previously mentioned, criteria selection is a paramount function of a rating

system when it is being created for a given market. The primary difficulty is selecting

criteria that are effective in their environmental goals and are accepted by the

construction industry as viable procedures. Moreover, these criteria must also be

appropriate within the regional scope of the rating system. However, because there are so

many different rating systems that have been developed, newer rating systems have the

advantage of being able to leverage past research and incorporate preexisting criteria into

their systems. Nevertheless, they must be careful to select points that make regional

sense and are most important to their stakeholders.

One of the current overriding characteristics of residential green rating systems is

that they offer a host of criteria to their builders. Many of these items are construction

methods that established builders already pursue, which therefore makes the rating

system more attractive to new entrants (Dooley and Rivera, 2004; Schendler and Udall,

2005). However, this practice results in some distinct consequences that often reduce









their credibility. Firstly, a builder that has the ability to certify a home largely based on

the practices that they already conduct may not be creating a home that is more

environmentally friendly, at least by the standards of sustainability. Secondly, having a

huge amount of criteria to chose from in an almost menu-like format tends to create a

structure that is only slightly more efficient. The primary challenge of all rating systems

is to offer a "systems-thinking" approach that will enable ultimate efficiency levels to be

achieved (Cole et al., 2005; Gunshinan, 2004).

That being said, the issue of proper criteria selection that facilitates systems

thinking is one that is particularly tricky. Certain assessment systems, such as LEED for

New Construction (LEED-NC), have attempted to limit the amount of points they offer,

at least when compared to some of the residential systems that offer almost five times the

number of criteria. Moreover, limiting the number of criteria tends to make each point on

an assessment system more valuable. Therefore, one direct effect of criteria limitation is

that builders strive to achieve points simply for certification purposes, and not for the

environmental benefits that they convey. This type of"point mongering" can

detrimentally affect the performance of the building and the reputation of the rating

system, because systems thinking is marginalized (Schendler and Udall, 2005).

Therefore, a rating system committee must be deliberate and careful when they

select points. It is a difficult task that must be highly prioritized, because the success of

the rating system will rely on the selection results.

Point Weighting

If a rating system has decided to use a point-based system for certification, the

process of weighting the selected criterions is perhaps just as difficult and important as

selection. The weighting of points is paramount to the success of a rating standard at an









environmental level. Most of the residential green rating systems that were analyzed for

this study tend to assign between one and ten points to their criterions.

Generally speaking, a criteria's point value is based on the perceived cost

implications and difficulty of achieving its objective. Cole has argued that weightings are

based on either sound scientific evidence of a criterion's environmental impacts or on the

social values that society perceives the criteria to represent (Cole, 2001). Nevertheless,

the weight of any point will have a profound effect on a building aggregate point total,

and thus on the relative environmental performance of a structure. Therefore, the weight

that a criterion is given must be based on rational evidence, thereby portraying to a rating

system's users the relative importance of said point (Cole, 2001).

While weighting is such an important task, it proves to be one of the most difficult

for rating systems. One of the primary difficulties is that many of the criteria are difficult

to quantifiably classify, which can make it hard to assign any logical point value to. A

commonly raised criticism of rating systems is that their point values are wholly arbitrary

or subjective, and that some low-cost criteria achieve the same point value as some high-

cost criteria (Schendler and Udall, 2005). Additionally, some of the high-cost, high-point

value criterions are ignored by builders who are worried about the final construction

costs. Unfortunately, often times the points that are skipped have the potential to provide

the highest levels of environmental benefits.

A solution to the aforementioned problem lies in mandating certain criteria that can

have the highest benefits attributed to them. However, because most of the residential

green rating systems are voluntary in nature, there is concern that mandating difficult

construction practices will lead to decreased industry use of the rating systems, which









will defeat the purpose of the programs entirely. Therefore, a generally accepted solution

to this problem at the current time is to slowly mandate criterions as the rating systems

become more highly utilized in the marketplace (Cole, 2003), or to offer a wide range of

attractive incentives to the builders who use a green rating system (Cassidy, 2003).

Another solution that has been emerging in the residential marketplace is by

making an entire rating system prescriptive. Prescriptive programs offer the rating

system administrators the potential to highly control the environmental performance of a

home, simply because they can mandate 100% of their criteria. This issue will be further

discussed in Chapter 4 as it pertains to the residential green rating systems in the US.

Overall Costs of Building Green

Another frequent criticism of the green building movement is that environmentally

friendly homes are too costly to construct, or that the market is not willing to buy a green

home (Seiter, 2005). However, the previous section of this report has proven that

consumers are willing to pay for green upgrades that have a good return-on-investment.

Moreover, studies have also shown that the cost of building a green structure is only

marginally greater than a non-green, traditional structure (Kats et al., 2003; Matthiessen

& Morris, 2004; Carlton, 2004; Sichelman, 2005).

One such study was conducted by the cost-consulting firm, Davis Langdon

Adamson. They discovered that there is not a statistically significant relationship

between building a green commercial building and increased construction costs

(Matthiessen & Morris, 2004). Additionally, a study that was completed for California's

Sustainable Building Task Force concluded that the average green premium for a LEED

certified commercial building was slightly less than 2% (Kats et al., 2003).









Residential buildings also have modest historical increases in prices for gaining a

green certification. According to WCI Communities, Inc., who is considered a "big

green builder" in the state of Florida, the average cost premium for a green home is as

much as 5% (Carlton, 2004). Furthermore, a developer who is planning on building a

350 unit green community at Lakewood Ranch in Florida expects that by using a

residential green rating system they will be adding only $1,000 to $3,000 to the cost of

each home (Sichelman, 2005).

However, it should be noted that residential cost upgrades could be highly variable,

depending on: the level of certification sought, local price conditions and many other

factors. Prices can fluctuate anywhere from an actual price reduction to thousands of

additional dollars, with price reduction potential coming from material reuse, equipment

downsizing, financial incentives, etc. Nonetheless, the previous studies have shown that

building green structures does not necessarily add significantly to the first costs of

construction, which is a commonly held misnomer throughout the construction industry.

In addition to overall costs of building green, there are models that have been

developed that attempt to quantify the benefits of building green. Kwong's model states

that as long as the ratio of net future benefits to investment costs is greater than one, the

green project will be accepted. Included in his net future benefits are the following:

direct cost savings including initial savings, utility savings, maintenance savings, and

deferred replacement cost; indirect gains including productivity gains, health care cost

reduction, improved quality of life, and prestige factor; reduced environmental

externalities including reduced penalties, quota trading, and health cost savings. This









model is one that is intended to provide a framework for identifying the potential cost

issues that go beyond initial capital outlay (Kwong, 2004).

A final component of the cost equation of green building is the idea of Energy

Efficient Mortgages (EEMs), which have become more popular in recent years. These

mortgages allow for homebuyers to qualify for loans that would otherwise be

unaffordable to them, by taking utility savings into account. The projected utility savings

can translate into additional income for a homebuyer, thus improving their debt-to-equity

ratio. Before 2003, many lenders were reluctant to offer EEM programs, mainly because

the underwriting process was cumbersome. However, Fannie Mae has recently

streamlined this process, which paves the way for more EEMs to be greater utilized in the

near future (Pasha, 2005). According to the Federal Citizen Information Center, EEMs

often result in an actual monthly savings in a homeowners mortgage as a result of the

utility savings. For example, a home that receives roughly $5,000 of energy

improvement (in-line with industry estimates) may have an increased monthly mortgage

payment, but it also has a lower monthly net cost when energy bills are factored in. This

example is represented in tabular form in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3: Energy Efficient Mortgage Savings
Same Home with Energy
Older Existing Home
Improvements
Home Price (90%
Home Price (90% ,$150,000 $154,816
Mortgage, 8% Interest)
Loan Amount $135,000 $139,334
Monthly Payment (Only
Principle and Interest)
Energy Bills $186 $93
True Monthly Cost of $117 $
Home Ownership
Monthly Savings $61
Source: Federal Citizen Information Center, 2006)









Life Cycle Assessments

Another issue that is related to the costs of building green is one of the most highly

debated in the environmental assessment arena: Life Cycle Cost Analysis. A life cycle

cost analysis is a mechanism by which the complete environmental impacts of a

multitude of issues can be assessed, so that appropriate alternative decisions can be

accomplished. According to Cole, Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) are generally

accepted as the only valid method in which comparisons can be made between materials,

components, elements, services and whole buildings (Cole et al., 2005).

Internationally, there are many tools that have been developed for performing

LCAs. In North America, ATHENA is one of the most widely used models, which was

created by the ATHENA Sustainable Materials Institute in Canada. Other models

include: EcoQuantum, EcoEffect, and ENVEST (Cole et al, 2005). The ATHENA model

has evolved over its history to where its software now includes provisions for 90 to 95

percent of the structural and envelope systems typically used in residential and non-

residential buildings. The overriding purpose of this model is to minimize the flows of

natural resources and energy to and from nature, in respect to the chosen construction

materials. In order to achieve this goal, the ATHENA model has built an inventoried

database of construction materials that tracks the usage of raw resources, energy by type,

water, and pollution emissions to air, water and land. Therefore, an ATHENA user can

input various alternative material choices into the program to receive a comparative

analysis in order to make a more informed decision (Trusty and Horst, 2002).

LCA residential case studies have been conducted in order to understand the effects

of material selection within the housing market. One such study was conducted in 1999

for a 2400 square foot custom home, that was to be located in Toronto market. Three









alternative designs for the home's structure were considered: traditional wood framing,

light gauge steel framing, and insulated concrete formwork. Overall, this study

discovered that the wood framing design was the most environmentally friendly choice in

five out of the six benchmarks, which were: embodied energy, global warming potential,

air toxicity, water toxicity, weighted resource use and solid wastes. The steel design

proved to be superior in terms of the solid waste measure, while the wood framing took

the other five categories (Trusty and Meil, 1999).

Fay, Treloar and Iyer-Ragina conducted another residential case study in 2000.

This study did not use one of the preexisting LCA models, but rather used a unique

procedure that was intended to model the energy use of alternative materials and

processes. One of the major concerns was discerning between embodied (initial) energy

(used to manufacture the materials) and operational energy over a component's useful life

cycle. The model intended to analyze these different types of energies and determine the

payback period associated with the material, which is defined as the point at which

operational energy savings from the energy efficient alternative exceeds the initial

embodied energy value of the material. Overall, this study found that the payback period

for additional insulation added to the home was approximately 25 years (Fay et al.,

2000). This study serves as an illustration that there are numerous LCA tools that exist

for a construction or design professional, which is an indication that there are competing

models. Fortunately, competing models allow for comparisons, which also leads to more

efficient and effective protocols.

While LCAs offer a more quantitative analysis of one of the most contested issues

in sustainable construction (material selection), there are still issues with their use.









Firstly, there needs to be a more comprehensive database established for the LCA

software, so that they can be more all-encompassing of the true effects of each material.

However, it is difficult to build this database because many of the material suppliers are

not willing to supply their product data to an LCA clearinghouse, mainly because of

confidentiality concerns or the effects that an analyses may have on their product's use

(Trusty and Horst, 2002). Additionally, another issue that remains prevalent in the use of

LCAs is the concept of benchmarking. In order for LCAs to become more cost effective

and universal in their approaches, there is a need for "benchmark" buildings to serve as a

comparative basis for material selection. In other words, LCA outputs often do not

provide for apples to apples comparison across buildings, mainly because each structure

is inherently different in its design and construction (Trusty and Horst, 2002). Therefore,

benchmark buildings would offer a higher level of decision making by being able to have

a greater understanding of the LCA's output.

Regardless of the current shortcomings that are inherent to LCAs, they are

extremely valuable tools. They can be utilized by rating standard creators in order to

make decisions in criteria selection, which is a very important issue. Also, they are

beginning to be built-in aspects of some rating systems, which ask the builders to perform

LCAs to determine the best course of action. In either circumstance, LCAs should be

more widely used within the realm of residential green rating systems because of the

advantages they offer their users, and ultimately the sustainable future.

Voluntary vs. Mandatory Standards

Another debate about residential green rating guidelines relates to the voluntary

nature that many of these systems currently adhere to. As previously mentioned, Cole

points out that voluntary systems have to be attractive to construction professionals and









buyers while maintaining credibility in the environmental community, which are two

conflicting goals (Cole, 1998). That being said, the current primary goal of voluntary

standards is to garnish market demand. Without it, there can be no changes in the

environmental landscape of the built environment.

However, a couple of the residential green rating systems have become mandatory

in their municipalities, which is something that home construction professionals are

vehemently opposed to across the country (Ross, 2005; Cole, 1998; Bowen, 2005). Most

of the opposition to mandating green standards is entrenched in the perceived difficulties

with complying with green standards that become adopted into building codes. Many

construction professionals believe that code approval means higher costs to them, which

is why they do not want code mandated environmental standards (Ross, 2005).

Nonetheless, mandatory standards offer a unique opportunity for residential green

rating systems because the minimum certification standard for a green home becomes an

obligation of all builders. If such a system was implemented, there is the potential that

green standards may serve to act even more as differentiation mechanisms for builders.

This is possible because consumers will quickly become used to purchasing an

environmentally friendly home. Therefore, there could be an increase in consumer

demand for ultra efficient structures, and then multi-tiered rating systems would then

begin to dominate the residential green rating system landscape. However, the potential

for such a mandate to come to fruition is slim at the current time, mainly because of the

cost implications that municipalities would incur with rigorous code inspections and the

opposition that major homebuilders would present. However, the rising costs of energy

and increasing effects of global warming may serve as catalysts for local jurisdictions to









begin considering placing environmental performance standards in their building codes

(Cole, 1998).

Code Approval

In some locations, adopting any new provision into the building codes can be a

highly difficult undertaking, not to mention adopting an entire residential green rating

system. While a few local jurisdictions have adopted the US Green Building Council's

LEED program for public projects, there are only a small handful of municipalities that

have made a residential standard completely mandatory (Cassidy, 2003). Although it

would be presumptuous to expect green rating systems to be mandated by local

municipalities, there is the potential to get incremental green provisions adopted into the

building codes, which helps to proliferate the goals of the rating systems.

A study was conducted by the Development Center for Appropriate Technology

(DCAT) in 2002 that analyzed building code approval for green building techniques.

This study surveyed 198 "code officials" and 56 "code users" in order to gain their

perspectives on the issue. The results found there are barriers associated with building

officials approving green building methods. Alternative methods are frequently denied if

they are in clear conflict with the intent of the code or if they lack adequate background

information. Additionally, applications for alternative methods are often avoided

altogether because there is the perception that acquiring the supporting information

needed will be too costly or cumbersome. Therefore, in order for green provisions to be

enacted into the codes, they recommended the following methods: use a sufficient

amount of supporting information with respect to safety concerns, keep strong lines of

communication with code officials and the intents of the code provision, provide contact

information for other building code officials that may have knowledge about the









proposed provision, and to resubmit a denied application with additional supporting

information (Eisenberg et al., 2002).

Therefore, the previous study has provided evidence that is difficult to obtain

acceptance for green provisions into the codes. However, with the proper planning, it is

possible to have certain elements adopted, which represent baby steps toward the gallant

effort of a more sustainable future.

Local Factors

As the previous section of this report has indicated, it is important to have the local

government's support for a green building initiative. However, in addition to code

approval, there are a host of other local factors that can greatly influence a residential

green rating system. A statement by the NAHB Research Center captures the essence of

this issue succinctly:

Green building is also uniquely local. Because climates, customs, availability of
materials and preferences vary so much throughout the nation, green building
measures that are essential in some areas may not be appropriate for others. (NAHB
Research Center, 2002)

It is extremely important that a local green building guideline contain provisions

for the variety of local issues that homebuilders will face, especially those that are of

significant environmental importance. For instance, rating systems that exist primarily in

wet climates will have water use options, such as rain barrel harvesting for irrigation, that

will not be practical in drier climates. Similarly, the criteria for energy efficiency will

most likely be significantly different for rating standards that function in cold climates

versus those that function in hot climates. Therefore, standard creators must be in tune

with the pressing local environmental issues, if the building science and technology

behind their system is going to have credibility. John Carmody, director of the Center for









Sustainable Building Research at the University of Minnesota has commented on this

issue by saying "If you look at the guidelines of programs across the country, about 80%

of them are the same, but regional issues matter" (Building Design and Construction,

2004).

While some of the obvious regional issues are related simply to latitudinal

differences, there are some more subtle concerns that are sensitive to local markets. For

instance, logistical constraints can make it impractical and inefficient for certain green

materials to be required by a rating standard (Carlton, 2004). Additionally, there can be

unintended consequences of certain criteria, such as mold problems in humid climates

that can result from constructing a home to be extremely airtight (Carlton, 2004).

One of the major issues that remains prevalent, in terms of the need to have locally

sensitive guidelines, is that many areas around the country attempt to simply adopt an

existing rating guideline as their own. However, this practice tends to ignore the need to

tailor criteria to local issues, unless the rating system administrators make a concerted

effort to localize it. Consequently, there can be a danger associated with a local

municipality or organization attempting to take an existing rating standard and simply

adopting it for their area. Cole has asserted that although there can be value associated

with sharing rating guidelines across locations, the risk of homogenization and reduced

sensitivity to regionally appropriate design strategies can hinder environmental progress

(Cole, 2003). Therefore, as green rating systems increase in popularity around the

country, there must be an educational initiative that explains the importance of local

issues to those who choose to create new standards.









This section has discussed many of the current issues and trends that are relative to

green rating systems. Many of these issues will be primary concerns throughout Chapters

4 and 5. The next portion of this study will briefly discuss some of the previous studies

that have been conducted on residential green rating systems.

Previous Studies on Residential Green Rating Systems in the U.S.

While there have been many successful international green building initiatives, the

focus of this study remains on programs within the U.S. This section will discuss some

of the previous comparisons that have been conducted of the American programs, while

Chapter 4 will focus on the study that was conducted for this report.

Just as there has been a voluminous amount of information written about the

generalities of green rating systems, there have been many comparisons made between

the various programs that exist nationwide. Typically, these analyses will address the

technical content that exists within the rating systems without delving into the context for

which they were developed (Cole, 2003). However, the analyses that have been

produced thus far represent a good starting point for future studies that may take a harder

look at the intentions of the rating systems.

There are a number of resources that compare rating standards in a relatively

limited manner. This means that the comparisons only focus on a couple of the existing

standards, which usually compare a national standard to other national standards, or a

national standard to existing local standards. Some of these comparisons have looked at

the differences between the NAHB's Model Home Guidelines and the USGBC's LEED

for Homes. A common consensus that emerges from these comparisons is that the

NAHB's standard is one that is more customizable to local markets and therefore is more

suited to the average homebuilder, while the USGBC's program is generally considered









to be slated toward higher priced and more sophisticated homes (Oliver, 2005;

Sichelman, 2005). However, this hypothesis remains untested at the current time period

because LEED for Homes is still in pilot phase and has not yet been fully implemented.

Another common type of limited comparison involves simply looking at the

programs on the surface. These evaluations are not highly useful to the rating standard

aficionado, but they provide a general overview of the programs to those who may be

unaware of them. Most often these types of comparisons contain tables that quickly

compare the programs. One such example is Environmental Building News's article in

May of 2002, which compared five existing residential programs by looking at their

implementation method (voluntary vs. mandatory), their incentives and their contact

information (BuildingGreen, Inc., 2002). Another example of this kind of comparison is

Yost's table that details 23 residential programs and displays their program

administrators, their dates of inception, their contact information and a short description

of the program. This comparison also offers a narrative section about six existing

programs, and concludes by stating that systems engineering is often lost in the game of

point accumulation (Yost, 2002).

A third type of rating system comparison involves heavily investigating one

specific standard against a couple of other systems, in order to determine the strengths or

weaknesses of the particular program in question. Usually, these types of investigations

are sponsored by the rating system administrators, with the overall goal of showing the

benefits of their system. One such investigation was conducted by the Tucson Electric

Power (TEP) Company, which runs the TEP Guarantee Home Program. This comparison

showed various energy measures that the program requires versus the Environmental









Protection Agency's (EPA) Energy Star Program, the Earth Advantage Plus Program and

the Certainteed Program. This comparison highlighted the rigorous testing that this

program requires, which will be seen in more detail in the Results chapter of this study.

A similar study analyzed Hawaii's BuiltGreen program to discover how a BuiltGreen

home compared to a "control house". It showed that the BuiltGreen house had much

lower average temperatures across the exterior, attic, west-facing bedroom and east-

facing dining room. These types of studies represent important research in the arena of

residential green rating systems, largely because there is little comparative data available

regarding a home's specific performance. However, there has not yet been a

comprehensive study of green home performance around the country. Therefore, one of

the goals of this thesis is to offer a starting point for analysis.

A final type of comparison that is commonly conducted is much more similar to

this report's methodology. These studies typically analyze a wide range of rating systems

in order to make some generalizations about the state of green building. One such study

was conducted by Nathan Engstrom for the University of Texas at Austin, in which he

looked at 14 different rating systems around the country. In his study, he declared that

certain rating programs were "darker shades of green" because of the manner in which

they certify a home and verify that the program was followed. However, much of his

research was centered upon assumptions about what makes a program green, rather than

specific objective criteria (Engstrom, 2003). Another similar study was conducted by

reSource Rethinking Building, Inc. for the Greater Vancouver Regional District and

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This study analyzed eight existing rating

systems in the United States and six in Canada, in order to make a suggestion on the









proper program to adapt for their market. This study found that a successful rating

program was one that was reasonably accessible by builders, has a high degree of

flexibility and incorporates builder education. This conclusion was made by comparing

the rating standards for verification procedures, flexibility, differentiation between

certification levels, range of points for criteria and range of environmental performance

for criteria (reSource Rethinking Building, Inc., n.d.). Raymond J. Cole for conducted a

similar study for the Stakeholders in British Columbia Green Buildings Ad-Hoc

Committee, which goes into great detail about the various options that green rating

systems currently employ. Additionally, he comparatively assessed four different rating

systems so that a recommendation could be made to the committee about which rating

tool they should adopt. His final proposal was based on a careful analysis of many of the

topics that this report has addressed (Cole, 2001).

Therefore, it is evident that there has been multiple comparisons conducted of

green rating systems with various methodologies and goals. As previously mentioned,

these studies represent important educational information about the assessment systems,

which helps to offer improvement possibilities to rating system administrators. Since the

majority of the rating systems in this country are relatively new, there is a distinct

possibility that comparisons will prove to be important to the evolution and refinement of

the green rating systems.

The next potion of this report will review some of the literature that has been

produced regarding the process for creating a rating system.

The Process for Creating a Residential Green Rating System

The process for creating a residential green rating system hinges upon the

culmination of the information that has been presented thus far. There are multiple









issues, variables and needs to be considered when a rating system is written, and this

section of this report will introduce some of the existing information on this topic. For

instance, any organization that intends on creating a rating system must take local

climate, market preferences, builder willingness, environmental issues, and the structure

of the rating system into consideration when they write a new standard. Therefore, it is

important to have a rating standard that is highly interrelated with all of the important

issues, which is how the model that is developed in the Results section of this study will

be constructed. Thus, the information provided herein will be utilized in the Results

chapter of this study, which will aim to create a process standard for the state of Florida.

In addition to the information that has been provided thus far on the structure and

issues relating to residential green rating systems, there are a couple of resources that are

specific to the process of creating a program. Specifically, Building Design and

Construction published a model for developing a rating standard based on surveys of

local government officials, developers and members of academia. Their study is intended

to provide local legislative officials with a framework of the important factors that must

be considered when writing a green assessment tool (Building Design and Construction,

2004). The results of this study are shown in table 2-4.

Table 2-4: Green Building Legislative Issues
1. Develop a resource guide to 7. Offer technical assistance to Building
1. Develop a resource guide to
compl t l. Teams to bring them up to speed and to
complement legislation. .
build the best projects possible.
. Work with the design/development 8. Use scorecards to educate Building
2. Work with the design/development ,
Teams and to keep count of buildings'
community to create your program. sustainable progress.
sustainable progress.
3 9. Strive for an integrated design approach
3. Government should lead by example. to development.
to development.
10. Keep your program flexible and review
4. Don't aim too high at first. s
it regularly with stakeholders.









Table 2-4. Continued
5. Localize your program, considering
. Localize your program, considering 11. Create administrative incentives for
climate, water and energy issues specific to grn
our regions. green buildings.
your regions.
6. Customize your program to "hot"
6. Cust e yr p m to 12. Remove legislative, regulatory and
markets. In the initial stages, don't try to
administrative obstacles to green building.
do everything at once._
Source: Building Design and Construction, 2004

Upon examination, it becomes clear that many of their suggestions hinge upon the

issues that have been presented in this study. Due to the complexity of a green rating

system, it is important to provide a clear process guide for creating one. Their number

six suggestion is one that is repeated by many experts in the field, which basically asserts

that you need to have existing market demand in place before a rating system is written,

if it is to be a success (Alameda County Waste Management Authority, 2003; NAHB

Research Center, 1999). Moreover, the overriding theme in Building Design and

Construction's recommendation is that a successful rating system is one that considers a

host of variables and issues, so that a cohesive standard can be created with long-term

goals. This guide will be utilized further in the Results chapter of this thesis.

Another important resource guide for the creation of a residential green rating

standard was published by the NAHB Research Center in 1999. In this manual, they

explain many of the issues that a local municipality or Home Builder's Association

(HBA) must focus on when writing a new assessment system. Their study resulted from

numerous communications with many of the green rating systems that existed around the

country. The first portion of their manual focuses on the process of creating a rating

system, while the second section focuses on the common environmental issues that

should be considered by a standard. A brief summary of their process related suggestions









can be seen in Table 2-5 (NAHB Research Center, 1999). For the purposes of this study,

the first portion of the manual will be utilized more fully in the Results chapter.

Table 2-5: Steps in Developing a Green Builder Program
Step One Determine Interest
Step Two Establishing a Committee
Step Three Setting Objectives
Step Four Determining Partners
Step Five Determining Program Coverage
Step Six Setting Up the Budget
Step Seven Considering Existing Programs
Step Eight Establishing the Certification Process
Step Nine Choosing Program Resources
Step Ten Establishing Program Structure
Step Eleven Creating the Program Checklist
Source: NAHB Research Center, 1999

In summary, there are many localized issues that are imperative to the success of a

new residential green rating system. Fortunately, there are a couple of existing guides

that serve to simplify the process of creating a new standard. However, this study intends

to build upon the prior knowledge that has been written thus far, so that a more

comprehensive and relevant guide can be available for the state of Florida.

Conclusion

Significant effort has been dedicated to the topic of green building assessments.

Many studies discuss the structural opportunities and differences of these systems, while

others have focused on marketplace acceptance. Also, the issues of debate are numerous

and varied, all of which will be considerations in later sections of this report. Regardless

of the opinions on this topic, one thing remains clear: green rating system use is

burgeoning in the construction industry. The simple fact that so much debate exists is an

indication of the impact that these systems are having in the traditionally static field of

construction. Hopefully, this trend is a sign that future generations of builders and






44


constructors will have fully developed models of sustainability to guide them in their

practices, which is essential to our society's prosperity.

The next chapter of this thesis will detail the Methodology that was utilized for the

Results portion of the thesis.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

This section of the report will utilize the information presented in Chapter 2 in

order to develop a model of comparison across the different rating systems. Moreover,

this chapter presents the research methodology that was employed to compare the

standards to one another, and the various variables that were studied. The majority of the

research and data collection that was conducted for this thesis was gathered by examining

residential green rating system's builder guidelines. Therefore, this chapter presents the

underpinnings of the analysis that will be presented in the Chapter 4, which will be used

to help create a process guide for rating system formation in the state of Florida.

Rating Systems

After conducting a careful study of the various residential rating systems that exist

in this country, it was determined that 35 different programs should be included in the

analysis based on their structure, implementation and purpose. Henceforth, the analysis

found that the rating systems could be categorized according to their intended function,

elements and method of implementation. While many of the rating systems appear to be

similar in nature, there are subtle differences that warrant examination. Table 3-1

provides a general list of the programs that were examined. Also, Table 3-2, which is

located in the next section of this chapter, provides some more detailed information about

the rating systems that were looked at. Both of these tables will be further discussed in

the next chapter of this report.










Table 3-1: Rating Systems Analyzed
Organization Program Name
Alameda County Waste Management Authority (CA) Green Building in Alameda County
American Lung Association ALA Health House
Arizona Public Service APS Performance Built Homes
Building Industry Association of Hawaii Hawaii BuiltGreen
California Building Industry Association (CBIA) California Green Builder Program
Central New Mexico CNM Building America Partner
City of Arlington County, VA Arlington Green Home Choice
City of Aspen, CO Aspen Efficient Building Program
City of Austin/Austin Energy Austin Energy's Green Building Program
City of Boulder, CO Boulder Green Points Program
City of Frisco, Tx Frisco Green Building Program
City of Scottsdale, AZ Scottsdale's GREENBUILDING Program
County of Santa Barbara, CA Innovative Building Review Program
Earth Advantage Earth Advantage
Florida Green Building Coalition Inc. Florida Green Home Destination
Greater Atlanta HBA/Southface Energy Institute EarthCraft House
HBA of Grand Traverse City, MI Grand Traverse Green Built Program
HBA of Jefferson County Built Green Jefferson County
HBA of Metro Denver Built Green Colorado
HBA of Whatcom County Built Green Whatcom County
Home & Building Association of Grand Rapids, Michigan Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc.
Kitsap County HBA Build Green Kitsap County
Masco Contractor Services Environments for Living
Master Builders Association of King/Snohomish Counties Built Green Program of King/Snohomish Counties
Master Builders Association of Olympia Built Green Olympia
Master Builders Association of Pierce County Built Green Pierce County
Memphis Light, Gas & Power Shelby EcoBuild Program
Metropolitan Partnership for Energy/Greater San Antonio B d An o
Build San Antonio Green
Builders Association
National Association of Homebuilders NAHB Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines
North Carolina Solar Center/State Energy Office, NC Dept. of North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program
North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes Program
Administration
Tucson Electric Power TEP Guarantee Home Program
US Green Building Council LEED for Homes
Vermont Energy Investment Corp. Vermont Builds Greener Program
Western North Carolina Green Building Council Western North Caroline Healthy Built Homes
Wisconsin Environmental Initiative Wisconsin Green Built Home









As indicated in Table 3-1, 35 programs were reviewed for this study.

Unfortunately, some of the programs that exist around the country have been either

inadvertently or purposely left out of this study due to a lack of information available on

them. Most of the programs that have been purposely left out of this study are energy-

focused and did not provide enough information for inclusion. Furthermore, every

attempt was made to include all programs that are based multiple environmental

categories, but there is the potential that a few existing programs do not appear in this

study. Additionally, certain programs that do not fit the into this study's focus pattern

have also been left out, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star

Program, but these will be mentioned in the next chapter because of their significance.

Rating System Analysis

The analysis of the 35 rating systems was conducted in order to discover the

commonalities or differences that exist between them. One of the primary differences

that was discovered was that there are three main ways in which a residential green rating

system can be classified: prescriptive programs that have an energy guarantee,

prescriptive programs that have a sustainability focus, and points-based programs that

have a sustainability focus. Additionally, there are six different ways in which an

organization with administrative authority over the programs can be classified, which

include: national organizations, home building associations, local municipalities, utility

companies, non-profit organizations, and alliances, which are defined as being a

combination between two or more authority types. Table 3-2 provides a summary of

these various relationships that exist between the rating systems. The term "sustainability

focus" designates those programs that contain multiple environmental categories in their

builder guidelines.









Table 3-2: Rating System Classification Matrix
Prescriptive Program Points Based Program
Authority Energy Sustainability Focus Sustainability Focus
Guarantee
Nationwide Environments ALA Health NAHB Model Green Homebuilding
Organization/Scope for Living House Guidelines
LEED for Homes
Home Builders California Green Hawaii BuiltGreen
Association Builder Program Grand Traverse Green Built Program
Built Green Jefferson County
Built Green Colorado
Built Green Whatcom County
Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc..
Build Green Kitsap County
Built Green Program of
King/Snohomish Counties
Built Green Olympia
Built Green Pierce County
Local Municipality Frisco Green Green Building in Alameda County
Building Program Arlington Green Home Choice
Aspen Efficient Building Program
Boulder Green Points Program
Scottsdale's GREENBUILDING
Program
Innovative Building Review Program
Utility Company APS EcoBuild Program Austin Energy's Green Building
Performance Program
Built Homes
TEP Guarantee
Home
Program
Non-Profit Earth Advantage
Organization Western North Carolina Healthy Built
Homes
Alliances CNM Building Build San Antonio
(Combination) America Partner Green
Florida Green Home Destination
EarthCraft House
North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes
Program
Vermont Builds Greener Program
Wisconsin Green Built Home

As Table 3-2 indicates, the majority of the programs (27) are points-based systems

that focus on a multitude of environmental issues, while five of the programs are









prescriptive in nature that also focus on a multitude of environmental issues, and the

remaining three are prescriptive programs that offer their users an energy usage

guarantee. However, the 35 rating systems were also analyzed across numerous other

variables in order to have a comparative basis for the Results chapter of this thesis.

These variables provided insight into some of the successful ways to construct a rating

system. The following sections of this chapter will introduce the variables that were

examined, and Chapter 4 will discuss the major findings.

Core Characteristics

Some of the primary data that was collected on each rating system was their "core

characteristics". More specifically, data was obtained from each rating system regarding:

the year it was established; the type of organization that administers the program; the

verification procedures for certification; the incentives that are offered to builders to use

their program; the type of membership in the program (voluntary vs. mandatory); the fees

that are charged to builders to use the program; and optional or mandatory program

elements, such as qualification as an Energy Star New Home. These characteristics were

obtained via personal communication with each of the 35 rating systems and by

examining their builder guidelines.

This data set was analyzed based the frequency of each characteristic, with respect

to the number of participating rating systems. The results represent a starting point for

rating system comparison because of the generalities they present. More detailed

information on each system's core characteristics can be found in the appendices that

accompany this study, and Chapter 4 will present some of the summary findings.









Sustainability Stratification

Another primary way that the rating systems were compared to one another was by

analyzing the relative weights the programs assign to the five main levels environmental

concerns. This was conducted based on their points systems, line items, minimum points

requirements and mandatory line item requirements. The five levels of sustainability that

were examined were: energy efficiency, material efficiency, indoor environmental

quality, water efficiency and site planning. Additionally, because many programs had

other common requirements, data was stratified according to homeowner education,

innovation opportunities, builder operations and other various unique categories, such as

disaster mitigation. By assembling the data based on these normalized categories, it

became possible to determine the overall average weights that are placed upon the

various categories across the nation. Table 3-3 lists the categories that were used

throughout the comparison for this study. Additionally, the original categories for each

rating system, before normalization, can be found in the appendices that accompany this

study.

Table 3-3: Category Normalization
Normalized Category Description
1. Bonus/Innovation This category offers builders the opportunity to be
innovative in their approach and gain credit for
items that are not specifically listed in the program
2. Builder Operations This category gives credit for certain practices that
promulgate green building awareness and expertise,
such as training their subcontractors in the program
3. Energy Efficiency This category offers credit for energy efficient
green building methods, means or materials









Table 3-3. Continued
Normalized Category Description
4. Homeowner Education Credit is earned in this category for educating the
homebuyer about their green home and its features,
such as providing a "green" home manual
5. Indoor Environmental Quality This category gives credit for construction means,
methods or materials that improve the indoor
environmental quality for the home, both during
and after construction
6. Preexisting Standards/Codes This category is concerned with the builder meeting
or exceeding certain state or local construction
standards, many of which go beyond the minimum
building codes in the area
7. Resource/Material Efficiency Credit is offered in this category for construction
means, methods or materials that aid in resource or
material efficiencies, such as recycling or using
engineered wood products
8. Site Planning This category offers credit for construction
activities that lessen the site impacts of the
development or the home, such as BMPs for
stormwater remediation
9. Water Efficiency This category offers credit for construction means,
methods or materials that increase a home's water
use efficiency, both during and after construction
10. Unique Items This category offers credit for those items that
cannot be classified in any of the other nine areas.

As previously stated, these categories were developed for the sole purpose

comparing the rating systems across common elements. Most of the green programs

have categories that are exclusively concerned with one of the ten normalized sections

listed in Table 3-3. However, a few of the rating systems have categories that can be

considered hybrids, simply because their line items fall under two or more of the

normalized categories. Therefore, in these cases, hybrid category line items were split up

and placed into their appropriate normalized category, which was accounted for in the

analysis that in Chapter 4.

Unfortunately, three of the programs that were analyzed for this study could not

have their categories normalized, because they were "ultra hybrids". This means that









their category structure did not follow the typical environmental stratification that the

other 32 programs followed. While these programs were not analyzed according to the

normalized category structure, they are included in the aggregate total numbers, which

will be seen in later sections.

Geographic Stratification

Based upon the sustainability stratification procedure, the rating systems were also

analyzed according to their geographic location. This was done in order to determine if

there were any important differences in the rating systems based on their location. The

regions were broken up into contiguous areas of the country with generally accepted

geographic boundaries. While, these regions do not specifically address climate

differences across the country, they still provide insight into some of the regional trends.

Table 3-4 shows a list of the nine main regions across the country, their respective states,

and the number of analyzed programs that exist within each state.

Table 3-4: Geographic Regionalization
Geographic Number of
GRegion .States Within the Region (# of Programs) Prog
Region Programs
Nationwide All 50 States(4) 4
New England Connecticut(0), Maine(0), Massachusetts(0),
New Hampshire(0), Rhode Island(0), Vermont(l)
Mid-Atlantic Delaware(0), District of Columbia(0),
Maryland(O), New Jersey(0), New York(0), 0
Pennsylvania(0)
Southeastern Alabama(0), Florida(l), Georgia(l), North
Carolina(2), South Carolina(0), Virginia(l), West 5
Virginia(0)
Southern Arkansas(0), Kentucky(0), Louisiana(0),
Mississippi(0), Oklahoma(0), Tennessee(l), 4
Texas(3)
Midwest Illinois(0), Iowa(0), Indiana(0), Kansas(0),
Michigan(2), Minnesota(0), Missouri(0),
Nebraska(0), North Dakota(0), Ohio(0), South
Dakota(0), Wisconsin(l)









Table 3-4. Continued
Geographic Number of
GRegion .States Within the Region (# of Programs) Prog
Region Programs
Southwestern Arizona(3), California(3), Colorado(3), 10
Nevada(0), New Mexico(l), Utah(0)
Pacific Northwest Idaho(0), Oregon(l), Montana(0), 7
Washington(6), Wyoming(0)
Pacific Alaska (0), Hawaii (1) 1

According to Table 3-4, the Western states currently encompass 17 of the 35

programs (49%) that were analyzed. Additionally, the Northeastern states only have one

program in total if the national programs are disregarded. Therefore, some of the

geographic analysis will not contain a large amount of information on some of the colder

climate states. For additional information, Table 3-5 provides a more detailed breakdown

of the geographic regions by listing the rating systems that exist in each of them. This

information will be analyzed more specifically in the next chapter of this report.

Table 3-5: Rating Systems Within Each Geographic Region
Geographic Total Number
Geographic Programs Within Each Region Tol N r
Region of Programs
Nationwide ALA Health House; Environments for Living;
LEED for Homes; NAHB Model Green 4
Homebuilding Guidelines
New England Vermont Builds Greener Program 1
Mid-Atlantic 0
Southeastern Florida Green Home Designation; EarthCraft
House; North Carolina HealthyBuilt Homes;
Western North Carolina Healthy Built Homes;
Arlington Green Home Choice Program
Southern EcoBuild Program; Austin Energy's Green
Building Program; Frisco Green Building 4
Program; Build San Antonio Green
Midwest Grand Traverse Green Built Program; Grand
Rapids Green Built, Inc.; Wisconsin Green Built 3
Home









Table 3-5. Continued
Geographic Total Number
GRegion .Programs Within Each Region of Poam
Region of Programs
Southwestern Aspen Efficient Building Program; Boulder
Green Points Program; Built Green Colorado;
Innovative Building Review Program; California
Green Builder Program; Green Building in
Alameda County; CNM Building America
Partner; APS Performance Built Homes; TEP
Guarantee Home Program; Scottsdale's
GREENBUILDING Program
Pacific Northwest Earth Advantage; Built Green Jefferson County;
Built Green King/Snohomish Counties; Built
Green Kitsap County; Built Green Olympia; 7
Built Green Pierce County; Built Green
Whatcom County
Pacific Hawaii BuiltGreen 1

Five Variable Sets

Building upon the core characteristics, sustainability stratification, and geographic

stratification, the next step in the data analysis involved analyzing the rating systems

based on five different variable sets. These sets of data came directly from the rating

standard checklists and point systems that are available to guide a homebuilder in the

construction of a certified home. The first variable that was analyzed was the total

number of points possible offered in each section of the rating standard, if applicable.

Second, the number of unique, mutually exclusive line items within each section was

quantified for examination. Third, the number of minimum points required of each

section was analyzed, if the rating system had such a requirement. Fourth, the number of

mandatory line items in each section was analyzed, if the rating system had such a

requirement. Finally, the fifth variable that was ascertained was the number of points

required to achieve certification, depending on whether or not rating standard used a

points-based system or had multiple levels of certification. These variables were









examined in order to determine the relative weight of a rating section, the relative weight

of a certified home versus the number of points possible, and also to have a basis for

comparison against one another.

In order to have a consistent basis for comparison, the first four variable sets were

normalized according to the sustainability categories described above. Additionally, the

number of total points possible, line items, and points required to gain certification were

stratified by their geographic location, so that comparisons could be made in terms of

regional sensitivity. Unfortunately, it was not possible to regionalize the data for

mandatory line items and minimum points required in a section, simply because there

was not enough variables in these areas to make a meaningful comparison.

Since the 35 rating systems had vastly different quantities for each of the five

variable sets, the data was analyzed based upon ratios instead of raw numbers. The

methodology for comparing the point and line item data was to compare each normalized

category total to the entire guideline's total, in order to come up with a representative

percentage. Additionally, the minimum points and mandatory line items variable sets

were compared across two separate ratios. The first ratio compared the frequency of each

variable in the normalized categories to the individual category totals. The second ratio

compared the frequency of each variable in the normalized category to the entire

guideline's total. For example, if a guideline offered a grand total of 100 points, and the

Energy Efficiency category contained 10 points, then 10% of the total points would be

offered by the Energy Efficiency category. Likewise, if the minimum points that are

required in the Energy Efficiency category were 5, then the first ratio would show that a

minimum of 50% of the Energy Efficiency points must be attained. Also, the second









ratio would show that the Energy Efficiency minimum points account for 5% of the total

points possible.

Number of Certified Homes

In addition to the five variable sets, another piece of information that was gathered

from each rating system was the number of certified homes that a program has completed

over its history. While not every program has kept records of this information, the

majority of the rating systems administrators were able to supply this statistic. These

numbers were collected in order to assemble the aggregate total number of homes that

have been certified by the 35 programs, show the number of homes that have been

certified each year since 1992, and to also provide some insight into the success they

have had in their various geographic regions. This information will also be used in the

final section of Chapter 4 that will come up with a model of rating system success.

Statistical Analysis Limitation

The analysis in the following chapter is based upon the framework that was

introduced in this section. However, it should be noted that the statistical analysis that

was performed are based largely on averages, medians and standard deviations.

Therefore, this study did not utilize some of the more sophisticated statistical models that

take confidence intervals, coefficients of variation, T/Z/Chi-Squared values, etc, into

account. The primary reason for this decision was based upon the data that was available

at the time of the analysis.

Also, the information that was collected from the builder guidelines was based on a

visual inspection and analysis. The procedure followed was to create a database for each

rating system by counting the respective variables. Although each rating system was

carefully analyzed, there is the potential that some of the cumulative point totals, line









items, minimum points or mandatory items may differ slightly from their actual or true

values. This is possible simply because there could be a situation where the rating system

administrators may decide not to honor a certain combination of line items, such as

giving credit to a home that uses two different kinds of wall systems (i.e.: combining

structural insulated panels with insulated concrete formwork, both of which may offer

independent credit to a home). Nonetheless, every attempt was made to eliminate those

line items from the cumulative totals that may not be combinable. For example, a rating

system may offer 4 points for a gas water heater and 10 points for a solar water heater. In

this case, only one line item would be counted and the larger point value would

contribute to the total points possible. The database items that were utilized for the

remainder of this thesis can be found in the appendices that accompany this study.

Rating System Creation Procedure

The final section in the Results chapter will discuss the procedure to create a new

rating system, with an emphasis on the Florida market. This section will rely directly on

the models that were presented in this Chapter and their corresponding results. In

addition to the environmental issues that are of primary concern, this section will also

look at the administrative needs for a new program.

The chief purpose for this analysis is to come up with a solution to a potential

conflict that exists within Florida. This issue hinges upon the fact that there are currently

three rating system that a builder could choose from in the state: the USGBC's LEED for

Homes program, the NAHB's Model Green Homebuilding Guidelines and the Florida

Green Building Coalition's Green Home Designation. Therefore, the purpose of this

section will be one that is based on consolidation, conflict resolution, and to the need for

a comprehensive standard around the state. Finally, a tertiary purpose for the procedural






58


model that will be developed is to serve as a guide for other locations that may have

similar needs.

The next chapter of this report will present the results that this study has

discovered, which is contingent upon all of the information that has been presented thus

far.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The previous chapters of this report served to introduce residential green rating

systems and the various issues that remain prevalent in their implementation and use.

This chapter will analyze 35 different rating systems that exist around the country across

numerous variables, in order to determine their overall similarities or differences. This

information will be utilized throughout the final section of this chapter, because it

provides clues on some of the most successful and effective ways to create a rating

system.

Residential Green Rating System General Analysis

This portion of the thesis will provide a comprehensive analysis of the 35 rating

systems that were studied for this report. As stated in previous chapters, this analysis will

only look at the programs based upon their structure, instead of trying to analyze their

environmental effectiveness. The results from the data analysis will be summarized,

which will include information about their program type, core characteristics and some

geographic stratification. Additionally, the next major section of this thesis will look in

detail at the builder guidelines that each program has written.

Types of Rating Systems Analyzed

After analyzing the 35 residential green rating systems, there were three distinct

types of programs that emerged. The first type of program was one that relied on a

points- based "checklist" in order to certify a home as being green. These programs offer

the homebuilder a list of green options to choose from during construction. Out of the 35









programs, 27 that were analyzed had a points-based structure. The second type of

program that was analyzed had a prescriptive nature to their green home certification. In

essence, these programs specifically list the items that need to be completed in order to

have a home that is built to their standards. Of the 35 programs, five were prescriptive in

their certification procedure. The final type of program in the analysis offers their

homeowner an energy usage guarantee for the home, which also contains prescriptive

requirements for certification. These programs typically will certify that a home's energy

bill will not exceed a certain dollar amount for a limited number of years, based on

annual kilowatt-hour usage. Three such programs were analyzed for this study. Table 4-

1 provides a summary list of the types of rating programs.

Table 4-1: Types of Ratin Systems
Type of Rating System Programs Programs (Cont'd)
1. Arlington Green Home 15. Florida Green Home
Points-based
Choice Designation
2. Aspen Efficient Building 16. Grand Traverse Green
Program Built Program
3. Austin Energy's Green 17. Grand Rapids Green
Building Program Built, Inc.
4. Boulder Green Points 18. Green Building in
Program Alameda County
5. Build San Antonio Green 19. Hawaii Built Green
20. Innovative Building
6. Built Green Colorado ovaive ii
Review Program
7. Built Green Jefferson County 21. LEED for Homes
8. Built Green King/Snohomish 22. NAHB's Model Green
Counties Homebuilding Guidelines
23. North Carolina Healthy
9. Built Green Kitsap County uilt Ho s rora
Built Homes Program
24. Scottsdale's
10. Built Green Olympia GREENBUILDING
Program
25. Vermont Builds Greener
11. Built Green Pierce County rrm
Program
12. Built Green Whatcom 26. Western North Carolina
County Healthy Built Homes









Table 4-1. Continued
Type of Rating System Programs Programs (Cont'd)
27. Wisconsin Green Built
Points-based 13. Earth Advantage ome
Home
14. EarthCraft House
Prescriptive Based 1. ALA Health House
2. California Green Builder
Program
3. EcoBuild Program
4. Frisco Green Building
Program
5. CNM Building America
Partner
Energy Cost 1. APS Performance Built
Guarantee Homes
2. Environments for Living
3. TEP Guarantee Home
Program

In addition to the certification structure, there was one other primary difference that

existed between the three types of programs. Specifically, three of the programs

analyzed were mandatory in their municipalities. These programs Aspen Efficient

Green Building Program, Boulder Green Points Program, and Frisco Green Building

Program require that builders submit green home documentation before a permit will be

granted. While Aspen and Boulder's programs utilize a points-based system to allow for

more flexibility, Frisco's program uses a prescriptive approach to guarantee that a home

complies with their standard, which contains 22 mandatory items that must be completed

during construction.

Finally, it should be noted that two of the most successful and popular residential

programs across the country have been left out of this study the Environmental

Protection Agency's Energy Star New Homes Program and the US Department of

Energy's Building America Program. While these programs have enjoyed enormous

success over the past decade, the way in which they "certify" a home does not allow for a









comparison to the other 35 programs in this study. More specifically, the Energy Star

New Homes program gives builders target energy efficiency performance goals, which

can be ensured by using a HERS rating. Also, the Building America Program is more

focused on research and testing to come up with better energy efficiency building

practices. Therefore, neither of these programs offers a set of builder guidelines that

could be meaningfully analyzed for this study.

According to the Energy Star website, the New Homes program has certified over

150,000 homes since 1995. Also, according to the Building America website, this

program has built over 31,000 homes in its research parks since 1995. Therefore, these

two programs have cumulatively constructed more homes than the 35 rating systems

combined. However, one final important note is that many of the 35 programs analyzed

in this study do give credit for a home that becomes a certified Energy Star New Home,

which will be shown in later sections of this report.

Core Characteristics

While there are three different types of rating systems that emerged in this study,

they all had eight comparable core characteristics: the date of founding; the type of

organization that administers the program; the verification procedures for certification;

the incentives that are offered to builders to use their program; the type of membership in

the program; the fees that are charged to builders to use the program; and optional or

mandatory program elements. These core characteristics represent the starting point for

their comparison, because they indicate the general manner in which a rating system was

intended to function.










Date of founding

All of the 35 rating systems that were looked at began between the years 1991 and

2005. Austin Energy's Green Building Program was the pioneer in the field; it set the

tone for the next 15 years of rating standard development. Many programs (24 of 35)

have started up in the past five years, mainly because of the success that the earlier

programs have enjoyed. Rating system market acceptance is burgeoning, which can be

directly illustrated by the number of programs that have been created in recent years.

Figure 4-1 displays the number of programs that have been started since Austin's

commencement.


Number of Programs Started by Year

10
9
8
7
6

5
4
3





1991 1993 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005



Figure 4-1: Rating System Start Up Year

Type of organization

As previously mentioned, there are six main types of organizations that administer

the 35 rating systems: Nationwide Organizations, Home Builders Associations (HBA),

Local Utility Companies, Local Government/Municipalities, Non-Profit Organizations,









and Alliances (combination of two or more types). Please refer to Table 4-2 for the

organizational classification of each rating system.

The type of organization that a rating standard is administered by has a large impact

on the way that a program is written, and its intended function. For example, all ten of

the HBA programs are points-based systems, while many of the prescriptive programs

are either local utilities or local governments. Furthermore, many of the programs that

have the ability to offer monetary or procedural incentives are local utilities or

government based, because they have the wherewithal to do so. Also, the organizational

type has implications on the fiscal abilities of a rating system's administration, which is

why many of the utility or government programs do not charge the builders any fees to

use participate. On the other hand, HBA administered programs have a need to generate

revenue off of their certified green homes, so they often will charge a series of fees to the

builder. The fiscal and budgetary concerns for a rating system will be an important factor

in the final section of this chapter, as will all of the other core characteristics that are

presented in this section. Figure 4-2 shows a graphic representation of the different

organizational types, and each of the rating system's individual type can be found in the

appendices that accompany this study. As the figure illustrates, the majority of the

programs that have been analyzed belong to either a HBA or an alliance. The smallest

numbers of programs are administered by non-profits, utilities and nationwide

organizations. One of the primary reasons why there are not more nationwide programs

is because of the gambit of locally sensitive issues, which therefore makes it very

difficult to administer a nationwide standard.











Organizational Type

12


10


8


6

0
4


2-


0-
Home Builders Alliance Local Nationw ide Local Utility Non-Profit
Association Government Company Organization



Figure 4-2: Organizational Type

Verification procedures

Another core characteristic gathered was the way in which the administrative body

for the rating system verifies that a builder has actually constructed a home that follows

their specifications. It was discovered that there were three main methods of verification

that exist amongst the 35 programs: builder self-certification (sworn affidavits of

compliance), inspections by the rating system administrators, and third party testing for

envelope tightness, energy usage, etc. Additionally, many of the programs use a

combination of the three different methods. More specifically, the rating systems that

have multiple levels of certification, such as one to five "stars", will typically require

more rigorous verification procedures for the homes that seek a higher rating level. The

verification procedures for the 35 programs are displayed in Figure 4-3, and each rating

system's individual method can be found in the appendices.











Verification Procedures

14

12

u 10
E





z4
2 8

.0
E


2-

0-
3rd Party Inspections Self Certification Testing & Testing & Self Inspection &
Testing Inspection Certification Self Certification



Figure 4-3: Verification Procedures

As Figure 4-3 indicates 12 programs employ third party testing as their only means

of verification. Inspection is the second most popular method, followed by self-

certification. Finally, only six of the 35 programs have chosen to employ a combination

of the three methods.

Builder incentives

The fourth core characteristic involved the incentives that programs offer builders

who utilize their systems. Generally speaking, incentives can either be monetary,

procedural or energy guarantees: monetary incentives are typically energy rebates offered

by utility companies; procedural incentives are usually expedited permitting offered by

local governments; and energy guarantee incentives guarantee a maximum monthly

energy cost, which are offered by three of the programs in this study. It should be noted

that most of the programs offer non-monetary or non-procedural incentives to the










builders, such as program signage, education and marketing. However, because these

incentives are largely intangible, they were not quantified for this analysis. One

interesting finding was that none of the HBA programs had any specific monetary or

procedural incentives that they could offer the builders, although most of them expressed

that they would benefit from having the ability to do so. In fact, 25 of the 35 programs

analyzed do not have any specific means for offering builder incentives, which will be

shown to be a paramount issue in the final section of this chapter. Figure 4-4 shows a

breakdown of the incentives that are offered by the programs, and each rating system's

individual incentive can be found in the appendices.


Incentives Offered to Builders

30


25


E 20

0)
0
o 15

= 10-


5-


0-
Monetary Incentives Procedural Incentives Guaranteed Energy Cost None of the Three
Permitting



Figure 4-4: Incentives to Builders

Membership type

Another core characteristic was the type of membership that a rating system

utilizes. This feature can either be voluntary or mandatory, and all three mandatory










programs in this study are administered by a local government or municipality. A

general consensus that was discussed in Chapter 2 is that many builders oppose a

mandatory green program, but there are distinct benefits that can be realized from such a

structure. One primary benefit is that an entire housing stock in a certain market is built

to green specifications, which contributes greatly to the goals of sustainability. However,

a common criticism of mandatory programs is that they often scale down the difficulty of

their green specifications to minimize resistance from the industry. However, this

analysis did not find that to be the case, given that the mandatory programs had similar

requirements to the voluntary programs. The breakdown of membership type can be

found in Figure 4-5, and each individual system's type can be found in the appendices.


Type of Builder Membership

35

30-

E 25-
25
CD
2 20
0
15
.0
E
= 10

5-

0-
Voluntary Mandatory



Figure 4-5: Membership Type

Builder fees

The sixth core characteristic that was identified was the fees that are charged to

builders to participate in the programs. Many of the HBA programs require both an

annual membership fee to belong to their green initiative and a per home certification fee.










Conversely, most of the municipal and local utility companies do not charge any fees for

participation, because they do not have the financial needs that an HBA may have.

Figure 4-6 provides a general breakdown of the fees that are charged to builders that use

the residential green rating systems, and the specific fees can be found in the appendices.

It should be noted, however, that there was not a quantitative comparative analysis

performed on the amounts that a program charges, simply because there is a large

variation in the fees.


Types of Fees Charged to Builders

12


10

E8

S6
0

E4

2-


0-
Both Annual and Per Per Home Certification Annual Membership No Fees
Home Fees Fees Only Fees Only



Figure 4-6: Fees Charged to Builders

Optional and mandatory program elements

The final two core characteristics that were examined for this study were the

optional and mandatory program elements that the builder guidelines contain for each

rating system. These elements are generally either national or local standards that have a

focus on energy or indoor air quality issues. Additionally, they are items that are usually










considered more difficult undertakings for a builder, and they are certainly more

technically specialized than a building code. Figures 4-7 and 4-8 display the most

common optional and required elements, respectively. It should be noted that the

cumulative totals seen in these figures add to more than 35 because many of the programs

have more than one optional or required element. Another important fact about the

required program elements is that many of these items are only mandated for homes that

achieve a higher certification level (given that the program has multiple levels of

certification). Therefore, not every home certified by a program will be forced to include

all of their required elements if they seek an entry-level certification. However, each

individual rating system's requirements for this issue can be found in detail in the

appendices.



Common Optional Program Elements in Rating Standards

14

12

E 10
oC
2 8

6

S4
Him
z
2


Energy Star ALA Health Manual J Other Energy Meet or Life Cycle None of
New Home House HVAC Sizing Star Exceed Analysis These
Programs Existing State
Energy
Standards


Figure 4-7: Common Optional Elements











Common Required Elements in Rating Systems

14

12

10
E

2 8
a-
0
6

z 4

2 -


Manual J Exceed State Energy Star Meet or Size Ductwork Other Energy None of
HVAC Sizing Energy New Home Exceed IECC via Manual D Star These
Standards Programs



Figure 4-8: Common Required Elements

As Figure 4-7 has shown, the most popular optional element is an Energy Star New

Home certification. For the points-based programs, this optional element most often

earns a good deal of points in the Energy Efficiency category. Also, Figure 4-8 indicates

that eight of the 35 programs have mandated Energy Star certification. Conversely, zero

programs have a mandatory ALA Health House certification, while eight programs offer

it as an optional element. One other interesting finding is that only two of the 35

programs currently offer credit for a Life Cycle Analysis. Finally, it can be seen that the

majority of the optional and required elements are related to energy efficiency, which is

an indication of its importance.

Sustainability Stratification

After collecting all of the core characteristic data, the next stage of the analysis

involved a thorough examination of the builder guidelines for each rating system, which









was completed by building a complex series of databases that housed information a wide

variety of topics. It was quickly discovered that the 35 different green programs have a

few homogeneous goals amongst their categories. However, many of the programs had

different titles for these categories, so it was decided to normalize the data using ten

standard category titles. Table 3-3 introduced the categories and their general goals, and

this section of the report will delve more deeply into this topic.

One very important factor that this study encountered while stratifying the data was

that many of the rating systems had hybrid categories that included provisions for two or

more of the normalized category names. In these cases, the points (if applicable) and line

items within these categories were split up by placing them into the appropriate

normalized category. Unfortunately, three programs that were reviewed did not have

their data sets stratified at all, because their category structure was completely disjointed

when compared to the other 32 programs. These programs were: ALA Health House,

Green Building in Alameda County, and Scottsdale's GREENBUILDING Program.

Ultimately, these programs had categories that often contained items that could be placed

in all ten normalized categories, which made it too difficult to stratify them in a

meaningful and accurate way.

The following subsections of this report will discuss some of the important issues

that are relevant to each normalized category. For additional information about the

program's category use, please refer to Tables 4-2 and 4-4. Also, each rating system's

original category names and subsections can be found in the appendices

Bonus/innovation

The first category that was created included line items that offer builders the chance

to be creative in their green construction practices. The only programs that contained









such items are the points-based programs, simply because the prescriptive programs did

not allow for this type of flexibility. Many of the bonus points that were available to

builders were open ended, meaning that there were not specific line items available for

credit, but rather each builder could submit their unique practices for acceptance.

Eleven of the 32 programs that were stratified had provisions for bonus points

allowances. Some of the common category names that were found in the builder

guidelines are as follows: "Bonus Points"; "Innovation Points"; "Innovation and

Additional Green Action"; "Bonus and Innovative New Measures"; etc.

Builder operations

The second category that was stratified gave credit for various types of builder

operations. These operations were most commonly focused on encouraging the builders

to promulgate the rating systems within the construction industry and local market. Only

six of the 32 programs that were stratified contained items that were concerned with this

topic. Common category names for Builder Operations within the builder guidelines

were: "Builder Operations"; "Built Green Team"; etc.

Energy efficiency

The third category, energy efficiency, is currently considered perhaps the most

important and significant concern within the green building arena. Energy efficiency of

newly constructed homes is extremely important to the sustainable future, especially with

rising heating and cooling costs. In fact, most of the rating systems have prerequisite

requirements for minimum energy efficiency performance. The items within this

category are concerned with a host of variables, some of them being: HVAC system

efficiency, lighting efficiency, water heating efficiency, thermal load efficiency, home

appliance efficiency, renewable energy source utilization, etc. All 33 of the stratified









programs had energy efficient items within the guidelines, and some of the original

category names were: "Energy Efficiency"; "Energy Efficient Building Envelope and

Systems"; "Energy Measures"; Energy Efficient Appliances"; "HVAC"; "Energy Code

Measures"; "Energy and Atmosphere"; "Efficient Building Design"; "Air Sealing";

"Appliances, Lighting, Renewables"; etc.

Homeowner education/operation and maintenance (o&m)

The fourth stratified category was concerned with the builders educating their

homebuyers on the home's green features, and ensuring that the structure will be

maintained properly. Maintenance issues are important to high performance homes,

especially with respect to indoor environmental quality and energy efficiency. Moreover,

one of the most common requirements in this category was that the builders provide the

homebuyer with a manual that thoroughly explains the important features of the home.

Sixteen of the 33 programs had items in their builder guidelines that revolved around

homeowner education. Some of the category names that these systems originally used

were: "Homebuyer Education"; "Promote Environmentally Friendly Homeowner

Operations and Maintenance"; "Environmentally Friendly Home Operations"; "Keeping

it Green"; etc.

Indoor environmental quality (IEQ)

The fifth category that was created for this analysis is concerned with the health of

the home occupants. Commonly referred to as indoor air quality, this category is also of

paramount importance within the green community. IEQ encompasses a broad range

concerns including proper ventilation, low volatile organic compound (VOC) emitting

materials and finishes, proper air flow, and other measures that contribute to a cleaner,

healthier indoor environment. This category is extremely important to green homes









because it has the potential to improve the overall health of the homebuyers by

minimizing toxic fumes and mold problems. Furthermore, these issues are becoming

more important to builders because there have been many recent lawsuits centered around

this topic. Following suit with Energy Efficiency, all 33 programs have items that are

concerned with IEQ. Some of the common category names used by the rating systems

were: "Indoor Air Quality"; "Indoor Environmental Quality"; "Health"; "Health and

Safety"; "Promote Good Air Quality and Health"; "Occupant Health"; "Advanced

Ventilation"; etc.

Preexisting standards/codes

The sixth category of stratification, Preexisting Standard/Codes, requires builders

to follow state or local standards to increase the overall performance of a home. Nine

programs within three states have provisions for preexisting standards, which are Texas,

Washington and North Carolina. Most of these codes are optional statewide standards

that have been written concerning energy, water, site planning, and other topics, with the

goal of improving upon the current building codes. Common category names for this

topic include: "Codes and Regulations"; "Build to Green Codes/Regulations"; etc.

Resource/material efficiency

Resource and material efficiency is another category considered to be one of the

more important issues in the green building arena. This category is focused upon the

conservation of natural resources and using materials more efficiently. Some of the

common ways in which these objectives are achieved is by recycling construction waste,

using recycled content materials, using sustainably harvested or rapidly renewable

materials, using local materials, using engineered wood products or other building

materials with alternative components (i.e.: flyash), etc.









While all 33 stratified programs stipulated IEQ and energy efficiency measures,

only 30 programs contained resource efficiency items, because the three energy guarantee

programs were not concerned with this topic. Some of the common category names that

the 30 programs used were: "Resource Efficient Design"; "Resource Efficient Building

Materials"; "Waste Management"; "Construction Debris Recycling"; "Reduce/Reuse/

Recycle"; "Purchase Resource-Efficient Products"; "Building Materials Selection"; etc.

Site planning

The eighth stratified category was site planning, which is concerned with land

development issues. This topic is becoming more important in many locations, mainly

because of the overarching implications that site development can have on the

ecosystems and natural habitats of indigenous species. Much of the focus of this

category is upon stormwater management; other areas of concern are tree preservation,

soil quality, erosion, efficient lot design, and a few others. Twenty-six of the 33

programs that were stratified decided to include site design elements in their builder

guidelines. Some of their chosen category names were: "Site Planning"; "Land Use";

"Lot Design, Preparation and Development"; "Treat Site Appropriately"; "Soil

Opportunities"; "Development Opportunities"; "Siting and Land Use"; "Landscape

Conservation and Stormwater Management"; etc.

Water efficiency

Another important category created for the rating system analysis has to do with

indoor and outdoor water efficiency, in terms of occupant use. Water is an increasingly

important environmental issue in many regions, including Florida. The 22 rating systems

that included provisions for water efficiency are generally focused on installing water

saving fixtures, reducing lawn irrigation, graywater reuse for non-potable functions and









rainwater harvesting for irrigation. Some of the common category names that the rating

systems used for Water Efficiency were: "Water"; "Indoor/Outdoor Water Use"; "Water

Efficiency"; "Resource Conservation: Water"; "Plumbing"; "Water Opportunities"; etc.

Unique

The tenth and final category that was normalized for the rating systems was used to

account for items that could not be definitively placed in any of the other nine categories.

However, after the analysis was completed, it was discovered that Florida's Green Home

Designation was the sole system had Unique items. Specifically, this rating system

contains provisions for hurricane damage mitigation, termite infestation and some other

key Florida concerns. Therefore, since this category only had one participating program,

it was not used in the points, line item, mandatory item or minimum points required

analysis. However, it remains an important issue, especially for this study, because it

highlights the important concept of creating a regionally sensitive rating system.

Geographic Stratification

Once the data was normalized into the ten sustainability categories, the next step in

the analysis process was to stratify the data into ten different geographic regions. This

process was undertaken in order to determine if there were similarities or differences

between the green rating systems, based on their location. Please refer to Tables 3-4 and

3-5 in Chapter 3 for a breakdown of the states and rating systems that are located within

each of the regions.

As stated in Chapter 3, the majority of the programs that exist throughout the

country are in the Western states. Unfortunately, between the Northeast and the Mid-

Atlantic regions, there is only one local rating system included in this analysis. However,

the geographic stratification will still be able to provide an indication of regional program









differences. Moreover, this information will be utilized for the final section of this

chapter, in which a process guide will be developed for the state of Florida.

The data analysis consisted of geographically stratifying the residential green rating

systems across their points and line item structures, as well as the number of homes they

have certified. These results will be presented in the respective subsections of this report.

As an introduction, Figure 4-9 displays the representative proportion of green rating

systems that exist within each geographic region.

Percentage of Rating Systems Within Each Geographic Region

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%
c- r"rfn/ U^B^^ ^H ^^ ^B ^


a.UU/o

n nno%


I. El


1..


Figure 4-9: Percentage of Programs in Each Region

Residential Green Rating System Builder Guideline Analysis

The next four sections of this report will analyze the residential green rating system

builder guidelines in detail. Specifically, this analysis will include information about the

different programs with respect to: their points structure within each category (if

applicable), their line items within each category, the minimum points required in each









category (if applicable), and their mandatory line items within each category (if

applicable). In addition, the points that a program requires for home certification will be

analyzed if it is based on a point structure. Finally, the number of homes that the rating

systems have certified since 1991 will be discussed.

The various tables and charts that appear in the points and line item, minimum

point and mandatory line item analyses will show comparative statistical data for the

different programs. These tables will be based on percentages, rather than on raw

numbers, simply because the different programs offer a huge range of respective totals.

For example, it would not be rational to compare a rating system that offers 200 total

points to a rating system that offers 1000 total points. Therefore, the data that will be

presented is based upon relative proportions of points, line items, minimum points

required or mandatory line items; which thus provides a level basis of comparison.

Number of Points and Line Items

The first stage of analysis was conducted for the green rating system's point

structure (if applicable) and line items. Line items are defined as a unique criterion

within a rating system's builder guide. For instance, an Energy Efficiency section may

offer a user a grand total of 100 points possible, which correspond to 50 separate line

items within the category. In the case of a points-based system, different line items will

have different point weights assigned to them, which indicates that they are generally

more difficult or costly items to complete. For the purposes of this study, the number of

line items and points were added up for each category in the rating systems, which were

then entered into a database for analysis. Therefore, this study did not take the line item's

respective weighted point value into account.









The analysis was conducted by comparing each individual category's points and

line items to the aggregate totals that are contained in the rating system. Therefore, a

representative percentage of each category (compared to the total number of available

points and line items) was developed. Also, in order to have a consistent basis of

comparison, hybrid categories within a rating system were properly broken up and placed

into the normalized categories, as Chapter 3 stated earlier. Furthermore, any points or

line items that were found to be mutually exclusive with other points or line items were

disregarded and not counted in the totals. An example would be if one line item gave 3

points for using a gas water heater and another gave 5 points for using a solar powered

water heater. In this case, there would be only one line item counted for these two

options, and the greater point amount (5) would be configured into the point total. While

every attempt was made to filter out any mutually exclusive items, the potential exists

that this process was not 100% accurate. Nonetheless, the data that is presented herein is

the result of a careful and deliberate methodology.

Unfortunately, three programs could not be stratified according to the ten

normalized categories, and thus could not be included in this portion of the study. These

programs were: ALA Health House, Green Building in Alameda County, and

Scottsdale's GREENBUILDING Program.

Please refer to the appendices to see each rating systems original point and line

item structure, as well as their respective quantities.

Points-based programs

Excluding the rating systems mentioned earlier, 25 points-based programs were

analyzed. By following the general procedure that was described above, representative

percentages for each of the sustainability categories were developed. Firstly, however, it









is important to display the rating systems that actually had provisions in their guidelines

for each of the categories, which is shown in Table 4-2.


Table 4-2: Twenty Five Points-based Systems That Utilized the Sustainability Categories
in Their Guidelines
Category Participating Points-Based Rating Systems
Arlington Green Home Choice LEED for Homes
Aspen Efficient Building Program NAHB Model Green
Boulder Green Points Program Homebuilding Guidelines
1. Bonus/Innovation (11 Total Earth Advantage North Carolina HealthyBuilt
Programs) EarthCraft House Homes Program
Grand Traverse Green Built Western North Carolina Healthy
Program Built Homes
Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc.
Arlington Green Home Choice Grand Traverse Green Built
2. Builder Operations (6 Total Built Green Whatcom County Program
Programs) EarthCraft House Wisconsin Green Built Home
Florida Green Home Destination
3. Energy Efficiency All 25 Programs Stratified
Arlington Green Home Choice Florida Green Home Destination
Austin Energy's Green Building Grand Traverse Green Built
Program Program
Built Green King/Snohomish Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc.
4. Homeowner Education (16 Counties Hawaii BuiltGreen
Total Programs) Built Green Kitsap County LEED for Homes
Built Green Olympia NAHB Model Green
Built Green Pierce County Homebuilding Guidelines
Built Green Whatcom County Vermont Builds Greener Program
EarthCraft House Wisconsin Green Built Home
5. Indoor Environmental Quality All 25 Programs Stratified
Austin Energy's Green Building Built Green Pierce County
Program Built Green Whatcom County
6.. Preexistg Ss Built Green Jefferson County North Carolina HealthyBuilt
6. Preexisting Standards/Codes .
9 Total Programs) Built Green King/Snohomish Homes Program
ST P Counties Western North Carolina Healthy
Built Green Kitsap County Built Homes
Built Green Olympia
7. Resource/Material Efficiency All 25 Programs Stratified
8. Site Planning (24 Total All programs EXCEPT Innovative
Programs) Building Review Program









Table 4-2. Continued
Category Participating Points-Based Rating Systems


9. Water Efficiency (19 Total
Programs)


10. Unique Items (1 Program)


Arlington Green Home Choice
Aspen Efficient Building Program
Austin Energy's Green Building
Program
Boulder Green Points Program
Build San Antonio Green
Built Green Colorado
Built Green Jefferson County
Built Green Pierce County
Built Green Whatcom County
Earth Advantage
EarthCraft House
Florida Green Home Designation


Florida Green Home Destination
Grand Traverse Green Built
Program
Grand Rapids Green Built, Inc.
LEED for Homes
NAHB Model Green
Homebuilding Guidelines
North Carolina HealthyBuilt
Homes Program
Western North Carolina Healthy
Built Homes
Wisconsin Green Built Home


Therefore, according to Table 4-2, the most utilized categories are Energy

Efficiency, Indoor Environmental Quality and Resource/Material Efficiency, which are

followed closely by Site Planning and Water Efficiency. The next procedure in the

analysis was to determine the relative weights of points/line items in each category, with

respect to the total number of points/line items in the entire builder guideline. Table 4-3

displays the normalized category statistical data for the programs that used each one.

Also, Figure 4-10 shows the corresponding average percentages for each normalized

category.

Table 4-3: Percentage of Points and Line Items in Each Category, for the 25 Points-Based
Programs
Points-Based: Representative Percentage of Total Points Possible in Each Category
Category Mean Median Std. Dev. Rang Min. Max. Count
Bonus/Innovation 4.8% 3.9% 4.1% 11.5% 0.4% 11.9% 11
Builder Operations 3.1% 1.6% 3.4% 9.0% 0.6% 9.7% 6
Energy Efficiency 36.4% 35.7% 12.0% 41.9% 19.3% 61.3% 25
Homeowner Education/O&M 3.5% 1.5% 5.4% 17.3% 0.0% 17.3% 16
Indoor Environmental Quality 14.5% 14.6% 4.2% 17.5% 6.3% 23.9% 25
Preexisting Standards/Codes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9
Resource/Material Efficiency 26.1% 24.4% 11.0% 52.5% 2.1% 54.6% 25
Site Planning 12.0% 10.4% 8.3% 38.4% 1.4% 39.8% 24
Water Efficiency 8.0% 8.3% 3.9% 15.2% 1.5% 16.6% 19









Table 4-3. Continued
Points-Based: Representative Percentage of Total Line Items in Each Category
Category Mean Median Std. Dev. Range Min. Max. Count
Bonus/Innovation 2.8% 3.2% 1.6% 4.3% 0.5% 4.8% 11
Builder Operations 2.9% 2.0% 3.5% 9.4% 0.4% 9.8% 6
Energy Efficiency 29.5% 29.7% 10.3% 35.8% 11.4% 47.2% 25
Homeowner Education/O&M 4.9% 2.1% 6.3% 17.0% 0.4% 17.4% 16
Indoor Environmental Quality 17.5% 17.3% 4.5% 19.4% 8.7% 28.1% 25
Preexisting Standards/Codes 2.1% 2.2% 0.9% 2.6% 0.7% 3.3% 9
Resource/Material Efficiency 28.5% 28.7% 8.3% 37.8% 10.9% 48.7% 25
Site Planning 11.5% 11.7% 6.4% 21.4% 1.4% 22.8% 24
Water Efficiency 8.3% 8.5% 4.2% 16.2% 1.9% 18.1% 19

Therefore, according to Table 4-3 and Figure 4-10, it is evident that the points and

line items that are associated with each category follow the same general proportions.

This fact indicates that on average the programs have assigned equal weights of points

and line items to each category. Some of the slight variations in numbers can generally

be attributed to mandatory line items. For example, no points are assigned to the

Preexisting Standards/Codes category because they are required items. This issue will be

discussed more fully in one of the following sections.

Also, it has become obvious that the rating systems assign the most points and line

items to the Energy Efficiency category, on average. According to Figure 4-10, the

average percentage of total points that is contained within the Energy Efficiency category

is approximately 36%, while the average percentage of total line items is approximately

29%. The next largest category is Resource/Material Efficiency, which is followed by

Indoor Environmental Quality. Site Planning and Water Efficiency have similar weights,

and the remaining four categories are deemed the least important in terms of their average

weights.

Another important finding stems directly from Table 4-3. This table shows that

there is a wide range of variation within most of the categories. This discovery supports