<%BANNER%>

Decision Model for Public Sector Assessment of Sustainable Buildings in Florida

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021378/00001

Material Information

Title: Decision Model for Public Sector Assessment of Sustainable Buildings in Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (188 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Sullivan, James G
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: certification, construction, costs, first, leed, sustainability, usgbc
Design, Construction, and Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Design, Construction, and Planning thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: My study examines first costs and design outcomes in pursuing a United States Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) certification for new commercial construction in the state of Florida. My study notes the two greatest drivers determining first costs are project specific LEED credits selected and the degree to which current building standards and practices meet those required by the USGBC. The model incorporates a Logical Scoring of Preferences (LSP) method that evaluates decision makers? preferences and cost separately and then combines preference rankings and costs to provide a range of costs and sustainable impacts. Each LEED credit is automatically conceptually estimated based on a limited number of project specific inputs. The resulting output presents certification benchmarks and cost ranges for the evaluation of LEED alternatives.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by James G Sullivan.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021378:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021378/00001

Material Information

Title: Decision Model for Public Sector Assessment of Sustainable Buildings in Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (188 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Sullivan, James G
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: certification, construction, costs, first, leed, sustainability, usgbc
Design, Construction, and Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Design, Construction, and Planning thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: My study examines first costs and design outcomes in pursuing a United States Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) certification for new commercial construction in the state of Florida. My study notes the two greatest drivers determining first costs are project specific LEED credits selected and the degree to which current building standards and practices meet those required by the USGBC. The model incorporates a Logical Scoring of Preferences (LSP) method that evaluates decision makers? preferences and cost separately and then combines preference rankings and costs to provide a range of costs and sustainable impacts. Each LEED credit is automatically conceptually estimated based on a limited number of project specific inputs. The resulting output presents certification benchmarks and cost ranges for the evaluation of LEED alternatives.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by James G Sullivan.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021378:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
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 E20101206_AAAADS INGEST_TIME 2010-12-06T18:32:04Z PACKAGE UFE0021378_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1053954 DFID F20101206_AABYEG ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH sullivan_j_Page_164.tif GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
4cf51a53c89348c036f565ed3c7619f7
SHA-1
1b919fb454d7d1c6c8a86e757058d8b448f06eaf
F20101206_AABZHI sullivan_j_Page_037.tif
4329b75996717fb2d90bd31390079126
d9dbebb32f3f2a3f7c54d35733788c346902c237
44296 F20101206_AABZGU sullivan_j_Page_148.pro
6a8f258731fc65c0f12d07293ca5f51f
e34863ac79d63279a4a9e493a2e7aa2fb693ee20
4593 F20101206_AABYEH sullivan_j_Page_137thm.jpg
0842f18956ed7a222ab9a2197f823e39
8a308e6fdc949aae04abb5a42f98b7b3a7efbf1c
54956 F20101206_AABZHJ sullivan_j_Page_022.pro
79f5eaf643e3ffccdb3017bca7859944
20f42fd1bd2d4ec974304e0b6fb5edc5cfded51a
25428 F20101206_AABZGV sullivan_j_Page_041.QC.jpg
64206657c0fd141fa0f1c64e44ce416d
0b8129c17a8d9c13920d220b9f8fd13b18e7982d
26909 F20101206_AABYEI sullivan_j_Page_011.pro
022732cd3dde89390f79bca53c9a3d32
a30870437e9009b06eb3d9644ee6bb4ccc64c991
4709 F20101206_AABZHK sullivan_j_Page_101thm.jpg
43d0d85bf9c9b7d1cbcd6a552066ae6b
b0701e7dd09e18c09bdaf006c986c4fbc3ba77e6
108320 F20101206_AABZGW sullivan_j_Page_158.jpg
c61095c97e3e2ed08afaf2fbe6b4a4f3
ff975c22f2a656eb12f5f7fcc50ad95c6f36d67c
119588 F20101206_AABYEJ sullivan_j_Page_084.jp2
d94768b04480a949b4b4039ed21327e5
79088dad538257504fa213d82b213474a1bf188e
93841 F20101206_AABZHL sullivan_j_Page_161.jpg
e750b535f01f0155a82848b88c8bfabe
5f66c2e46b973a12d15584cafbefb8442aa292e0
2084 F20101206_AABZGX sullivan_j_Page_057.txt
b27677b20f80e7bd3eac555721643816
d3e30bb47cb06f96c331be64078574183287f24e
47967 F20101206_AABZIA sullivan_j_Page_126.jpg
b99302f7499eef0f436320c6fa8861e4
cc78fbf98b43b2c1d0b5adcd8d2231a7be74fd13
F20101206_AABYEK sullivan_j_Page_049.tif
499cc397a5dda51943a5f5cbb3245941
d8144ab470779f6c73397a6bab8ea6a22196d825
F20101206_AABZHM sullivan_j_Page_014.tif
4be9be534d7a3f9f7a344f4016c22508
6e4532a3a11834c63547a6594149981ea7856465
24899 F20101206_AABZGY sullivan_j_Page_042.QC.jpg
4ea1b4f89084068a09481f10e0e2ae78
c3d53d5677fdf542c2363a5e298d794f34b1e90d
55330 F20101206_AABZIB sullivan_j_Page_041.pro
a41a9fd54fd4d5d52d287337fdcdb429
4bf38002422b3e658e495b68c19df69ea2c527a8
112997 F20101206_AABYEL sullivan_j_Page_153.jpg
4399d7ced32c5fdebb5145e454612d23
709bf1c2700af3bd13b6ff53ded3a11cb872d16f
40466 F20101206_AABZHN sullivan_j_Page_011.jpg
c9760bc964c94c9e842b09ce39b307de
b4462436c1b13b10eebecfe2e3c27bfd2c28339a
114594 F20101206_AABYFA sullivan_j_Page_049.jp2
b6473c0ca86d8d79b41da20692b5ef8c
12e90ea51ce869da56dfc4722eeaed5efbc58749
24890 F20101206_AABZIC sullivan_j_Page_037.QC.jpg
5e34c1c81d27bc66701029e766ac2ea6
029ec9939924cf8a8b876d7d5843c7b0557c2cf6
1805 F20101206_AABYEM sullivan_j_Page_096.txt
5876fc59234c0b128f91a064ba79bbd1
2015d437fb0803a4793f3a35029c1180e22b7f51
46190 F20101206_AABZHO sullivan_j_Page_009.pro
148ce5706e1fdc9f94f7791a1857f2bb
7048c53616613ceb3923ab82ca53bd43773f0603
4055 F20101206_AABZGZ sullivan_j_Page_141thm.jpg
4794b502db023861e29b44ba8735f443
533e7ef40244407d74e998b5e8e9e5a59d2ae89a
49082 F20101206_AABYFB sullivan_j_Page_082.pro
260dd34431beb26e5d1f1a770230c0ff
e904dade732f93310b63b4899c2324106003aa16
2001 F20101206_AABZID sullivan_j_Page_037.txt
cf6b021ec72adf8b1ac994106ab3bbe9
1602a45ca9b95b8a80cd80b57fbd84af9ed0488e
7869 F20101206_AABYEN sullivan_j_Page_184.QC.jpg
5bf6fc3c6d498640088ee65d6944cc01
8175824643e043524806b7b02b1d5770af0c8098
F20101206_AABZHP sullivan_j_Page_096.tif
cf96431ae586597a39587bbaaa8aae66
b93648d03594fad3693fc13834323929be9eb67f
116077 F20101206_AABYFC sullivan_j_Page_042.jp2
784a589b04e2c8133a15f178179acb36
4ab7914242c5740897312b52510ec5ec7bf105b9
184236 F20101206_AABZIE sullivan_j_Page_175.jp2
d545727cc08e07a118005f49442c6443
f16f14776d6b219a277604f8d0b8dc5e6c1de24e
31709 F20101206_AABYEO sullivan_j_Page_156.QC.jpg
d611b53c0d4e64770ee06e5c60b43036
993a55e5c9bb94af8c0d7a4faac9d118020e5d0f
54053 F20101206_AABZHQ sullivan_j_Page_052.pro
7fc15cf9551b77d33ba34fafe54284a8
34a3fe4c590ed3ea5ba8e37508ba90d87d030d37
1954 F20101206_AABYDZ sullivan_j_Page_062.txt
99655e2718700fc74239cb791b7a7cd2
12b509e748145a92fc44e38ae5565d7b141af2ed
87493 F20101206_AABZIF sullivan_j_Page_007.pro
797d692f478c9de3153d2172dfa05fd7
fa4a0759d42214ac5dadeadb70c2cf8faed163e6
2126 F20101206_AABYFD sullivan_j_Page_050.txt
5bf32e6450e687040d8b5b720a5741f6
68c24a8da80f8a16d56dd13a72335d864c818c4e
74887 F20101206_AABYEP sullivan_j_Page_092.jpg
3810a64a63361e4f375730ea187ae270
57422b59ec48457c3526232af48a69aed42bd7d0
23520 F20101206_AABZHR sullivan_j_Page_146.QC.jpg
6ba848925014c6ee4ef3835861d482b5
34e5ec5a7174ab384b9063b6680c5090d098e41b
22913 F20101206_AABZIG sullivan_j_Page_054.QC.jpg
e38a2c0e5c4a0b15f7eba95c65ebfebc
34a5948f876426ab1dec3893b1820d3e6703db64
74537 F20101206_AABYFE sullivan_j_Page_085.jpg
d3bf39b6d87e1a688d3ae6dff8c20e36
83a22eba9ac99b52b6f15b38de8e3c761e169304
54460 F20101206_AABYEQ sullivan_j_Page_042.pro
37b2fd4b273e385b78758e5a46f33bbe
d04ed08af74e8a3ebe98d77a40eb3fab7a3b3384
25271604 F20101206_AABZHS sullivan_j_Page_005.tif
03d979920ec5878fc797f3b2c0d29379
61ffea971354aa1bc88ad613c36820325f9f3509
2016 F20101206_AABZIH sullivan_j_Page_090.txt
9243ac983aab6854f5f9dd61e9ca1006
3f6a3240235fa862d6ce9bb1c200fc673c7f9fa1
2873 F20101206_AABYFF sullivan_j_Page_162.txt
bc4c3b152d43a224c89dc1c74582f409
874e7e7e3c581794756783f6494f021de6262993
1043 F20101206_AABYER sullivan_j_Page_183.txt
105bbad85f92e4d1870174858eaad5ef
df9156d91f9cc6549582a4cc57a74518ebe11443
50954 F20101206_AABZHT sullivan_j_Page_114.jpg
36a8dd1ef728a7a034b42037f57cd44a
56433cb334cfc11344d4529c12946c13d3eb7b69
18978 F20101206_AABZII sullivan_j_Page_077.QC.jpg
24a929367e17eec1a015d33f664db47f
f1b1932f23477c4888a7f0861b6599af3c8d6dc6
1283 F20101206_AABYFG sullivan_j_Page_078.txt
737f882910645ffb94ff0126b5125259
15d792ef8bfc15ef2253fb1629b4a8680570de42
32955 F20101206_AABYES sullivan_j_Page_164.QC.jpg
859e6677f97ac13bb433163533196000
0bae20b88da225d1f76718e711d2187fa38675ed
13154 F20101206_AABZHU sullivan_j_Page_128.QC.jpg
6b5fa2398d8d8944b2cfd999a7862090
b9c07a58226de20b013550a1be4acfff3c97d432
2043 F20101206_AABZIJ sullivan_j_Page_109.txt
f991ff18cb75713d33708ced97dc0b36
8eaebac87263b04545ed74fdd933f11fd7ddec74
51934 F20101206_AABYFH sullivan_j_Page_033.pro
e6954f94d2f80c2ac1e0790ba66df4d5
9c8baaa917d31775b147bcd6451883368bf8a995
31812 F20101206_AABYET sullivan_j_Page_177.QC.jpg
dc18e0d204b247f7b9571e774baa6db2
d2587d55a2355d266fa1754684102b47110b8a79
27305 F20101206_AABZHV sullivan_j_Page_108.jpg
aa90766bc5a14d0872bd41c1d48e0182
96fdb7ea378cc7623c461e1f450b77766461a9c3
6531 F20101206_AABZIK sullivan_j_Page_133thm.jpg
fcea44e8fa4dc02935cfcf8376e466d3
b3204e4482ad801c29070875d4ccdf1c287b2985
6558 F20101206_AABYFI sullivan_j_Page_037thm.jpg
249406f15d677269715193a496cc8317
44f4d905961b09900fe113e2f63502e616db772c
108822 F20101206_AABYEU sullivan_j_Page_031.jp2
59b7dcc9eb1b4c8e2cf0bd3034feb1ed
811963b987cf784b5151dd2dd78bf25ee1ee6354
20711 F20101206_AABZHW sullivan_j_Page_149.QC.jpg
094d6f3dcd46003d4b130db3deba60a9
ac573a4ed7e7de8370646ee8cc3e9ceb34450768
2124 F20101206_AABZIL sullivan_j_Page_132.txt
7480e520beb537c31dc54904e6110027
7d898e005caab8213e88f0cb91aa83aa89b2a9ee
60964 F20101206_AABYFJ sullivan_j_Page_012.pro
8a40deac556d73e7a31feafd290ca887
2555fe9fc58ca57532e7c8ff4e8e839d749b9335
2101 F20101206_AABYEV sullivan_j_Page_069thm.jpg
224b64af51a63f21cc1b08739d6ee7ef
5512395bab6efcadc82c67069907cfe1cd739b3b
59769 F20101206_AABZHX sullivan_j_Page_072.jp2
c6cb9732de314ceb68ccf54015250996
09fb5c6ecc51750993575868c15c5fe66a88ba69
F20101206_AABZJA sullivan_j_Page_084.tif
471c922b3aff3505cf0c463260a6a0a2
c606da5539b4cc6befd59868b84b23f58aabfb42
53911 F20101206_AABZIM sullivan_j_Page_027.pro
5bfc2bc3ca35b5d7301c9c624edfb08e
90b437bb9899cb38cfa676000d89940ef17656eb
F20101206_AABYFK sullivan_j_Page_071.tif
845bedff0cd8a7a69c1b6be4363431db
2359b2cc19a98a7dc4ee611c6b4c3c0d38b1db67
F20101206_AABYEW sullivan_j_Page_081.tif
414b05473b978dae8f4cbaa0c4062b8a
7a62abdfc0889c28ca3cae64ecb79722e5a2bb1a
6891 F20101206_AABZHY sullivan_j_Page_023thm.jpg
259714f44d0fe8d91c323783207571a4
c88e48b42dcfc22d290bf7c69b5bd07ca24243a6
6834 F20101206_AABZJB sullivan_j_Page_048thm.jpg
a1af45f8d200f5669c22f7d21bf12bbb
ee4b5f2f2c84df841f476ce54e1fe699e99e0d61
6587 F20101206_AABZIN sullivan_j_Page_044thm.jpg
669dad6347e566eedad3af621c90307c
4a0a40e0a592ee54663ab29d12577abb09dd3c9c
120756 F20101206_AABYFL sullivan_j_Page_064.jp2
0d451bb85c6f6997e96669ec48f27863
66406d3f35c63c67cb77cc14ac08838720fa0aa6
31174 F20101206_AABYEX sullivan_j_Page_124.pro
c308a48aa19f5f7010221d816d5666ed
e42ef6f3ee364e6eb5c060bcdfa77c1dbf261715
F20101206_AABZHZ sullivan_j_Page_090.tif
52e22b0286f8d73b475642005a4050aa
b80b793993923a841fe349109d4b6a76b62774fa
12204 F20101206_AABZJC sullivan_j_Page_150.jpg
1e6ba2bfe14a51ea962b46517990edad
c47af86e7e88b931762d96b492f5049f5aa50f8a
F20101206_AABZIO sullivan_j_Page_001.tif
5f15b64feff3283a90896ee96bccfc3a
36e2e844f67d726ace1014a5f80c8b354ae832a2
50652 F20101206_AABYFM sullivan_j_Page_097.pro
5b32f379f05a8d3d16bcb89033b7d8bc
3cbe44aa2ad0a3091074f3b5c1a0327dd8f2b436
2238 F20101206_AABYGA sullivan_j_Page_092.txt
913e4c58563fd18064342a015de66765
76cb3691bf8bc2f80ee29adc8722b2e5b4eaacf0
103810 F20101206_AABZJD sullivan_j_Page_169.jpg
059fb0c1f20e964e64dacdeaae4d2353
cdfb78d8be08ce9e711e63ecd51ba20825b9fe85
110112 F20101206_AABZIP sullivan_j_Page_157.jpg
56d489cc2b7e0daaa8242c173826e07b
85bda5f6da988ee8763d1b264e9aca0e6bc8e22d
25545 F20101206_AABYFN sullivan_j_Page_098.QC.jpg
f3c1c40eaa0bfed696ad1d8f5a5a3b48
78a336d2c30c58a04f37693ebb0b9e001c2a1b18
75728 F20101206_AABYEY sullivan_j_Page_167.pro
a5ae2692eb26f7ee80ec595eac08d86b
018fc868d911308d6f0ee55b33536d24d7664135
6923 F20101206_AABYGB sullivan_j_Page_026thm.jpg
1b4c5e8462564387096b9843095612b5
4a7fa01985f6627a8d5ee1c4b49906211516d8c0
6617 F20101206_AABZJE sullivan_j_Page_098thm.jpg
b61ae6f30429f19213f1d8d9f294f88d
ff68a89d4134ab415e57122288bce811e69dcd0f
14989 F20101206_AABZIQ sullivan_j_Page_137.QC.jpg
320137e8cfb449db4ed2edc773ea22ec
3d62d4d79fcb1b8ef138b586d0eb4fbed0d2e672
78201 F20101206_AABYFO sullivan_j_Page_010.jpg
575f549ddff79e1f64a4ae781d486628
177e847c3dbd18e5c010e95ea7ef53e3a413798b
6723 F20101206_AABYEZ sullivan_j_Page_135thm.jpg
5540adac4820d298265a8e09672bacb1
ea34868fb2533fad4b517eecd861a3c2b41d338f
3532 F20101206_AABYGC sullivan_j_Page_164.txt
31e33cd4ab5a9addc25d3bc4f1951c76
5fc127997301e7dd79d5a2ae84161e4490fbd0db
29479 F20101206_AABZJF sullivan_j_Page_178.QC.jpg
e92f182d5e654c41de25d5d3eb1b827a
850e051ab9a97c25c9e5e8c1f438c8e4244d2cd9
6307 F20101206_AABZIR sullivan_j_Page_131thm.jpg
5a24762979ed6dcb328ba0f2902a0303
ff91f476c66ef550e4987464680783423567a99e
6410 F20101206_AABYFP sullivan_j_Page_187thm.jpg
542f480bc4612c74fda41c77d3653bb9
f128316ef23484ac2f66f7941bfda8b8cf234e01
76272 F20101206_AABYGD sullivan_j_Page_169.pro
c554efab8c7d782269ca25435282b4cd
571b9d0e45ffb7f8b886922df50498c3ba18ebbc
1905 F20101206_AABZJG sullivan_j_Page_061.txt
1ca3ca0115a924b43ecdcddf24fe5efc
2b632797a25a4750227f1d9749736fae7b6680aa
43678 F20101206_AABZIS sullivan_j_Page_120.jpg
2b2a97d176b8e4d276d30dd65bc2fe4b
992a892c38ab17c1d5a382742e2782a67c1f7985
103965 F20101206_AABYFQ sullivan_j_Page_081.jp2
422d5911d698f0fbc2095285a9526b82
b136b90a9319fda08b8e3aa7c401684341be6032
15617 F20101206_AABYGE sullivan_j_Page_101.QC.jpg
97890739285953afd3333f55f45087dd
a8f94bbbca4aec29dec3d8ef09e1449d4abe8631
3600 F20101206_AABZJH sullivan_j_Page_011thm.jpg
d63631792f8be05a77d1cce7ec177be9
9f73d04ca587a609e76886519b06c3150f192035
109143 F20101206_AABZIT sullivan_j_Page_062.jp2
ab86dcb833f6887f55e26a6fd86a5cfc
a965952e366e0eda4ba6ff1a4f9d3c03d64e0092
9456 F20101206_AABYGF sullivan_j_Page_068.QC.jpg
37bd21ccd990bed777b0e16bad1dc0ab
69e962f5f43f26dd3ba7a19acc746c775a1b24fe
77613 F20101206_AABYFR sullivan_j_Page_050.jpg
e9be2eda0ce45cbe15d62ec2863df2d6
d283d3b7c6652ba8ab69cebd2f74a96113f4ddbf
6990 F20101206_AABZJI sullivan_j_Page_088thm.jpg
6d36842c688e81f89f146b4f4468640c
e020c41d81c5d8e51d1069acd1736b0686bedcec
7256 F20101206_AABZIU sullivan_j_Page_186thm.jpg
2a12850fa3de0eaa81b5f0b6faf36dc2
0c9cdc62bf0deb1f8568c80e61597db5447d8d37
30247 F20101206_AABYGG sullivan_j_Page_174.QC.jpg
5aef32b3dd50e2e1781ad6a2121202c2
eff5568fdd3a62e16d688d4b05edaf79c27983e9
6634 F20101206_AABYFS sullivan_j_Page_007thm.jpg
439bb2124b6a12cf6e7801ddb6187cbe
cf347d0eb2aae68982b9e719bd99c55bf4dbbfd8
118598 F20101206_AABZJJ sullivan_j_Page_087.jp2
b21fab80c230423c406741d6c495d4a2
ff292db3ec795fc201381488e62573eada7f4caf
107585 F20101206_AABZIV sullivan_j_Page_007.jpg
033a7bb9933c261d3e2cafea3cde846c
8cad676529f47d0f33159b06410fd965708ce103
6632 F20101206_AABYGH sullivan_j_Page_064thm.jpg
3c27eb550fcebaf8deccdcf043c8508f
e3aa3fdcdfcdd81d57c1caeb58e9431d1de4b36b
26870 F20101206_AABYFT sullivan_j_Page_007.QC.jpg
3b61cbdc872ebe2b45fc7f2e83f04738
991af776444df7c7166a724e0192aea0f8a33951
33631 F20101206_AABZJK sullivan_j_Page_175.QC.jpg
44c21ae5110f712a5074e43c6204e8bd
e7073d3969e97ac3c104a0e3e8b78ee5e2fd2a44
F20101206_AABZIW sullivan_j_Page_140.tif
983a5167bfe41914e1715c9b38b4374d
de6536920508f8e8a498d4b9dfc9bb9d074d5988
496 F20101206_AABYGI sullivan_j_Page_067.txt
bda7e2cc203a5baec923d694c66df402
c4da9cc2e7577fffbadad13f541b24d376d80e4f
97 F20101206_AABYFU sullivan_j_Page_002.txt
52ad8429d91ddc6f6a5135b6ef8c5acb
6247b3e48d9cc0f8f29f2fd5a8b739ba8f5c7d87
103007 F20101206_AABZJL sullivan_j_Page_180.jpg
d6b42f9811a8e35990327829ccc4f401
1de8738aa962c1795cfbaf9dde3b3691e94694f6
17268 F20101206_AABZIX sullivan_j_Page_125.QC.jpg
2d3176afe0c320c68efde777b563909c
6a0028d9709f7fa74a715e98629dff1373f596cb
5034 F20101206_AABYGJ sullivan_j_Page_148thm.jpg
3bdf8c28eb9c6fb982943887b9f35e88
b2652aa1e4ac40bb72dc69e1276aeb839dd9452b
30954 F20101206_AABYFV sullivan_j_Page_139.pro
bae544a9c12890e2a5ac38979da4fb76
58ffabe4ef7651e9fe901fbb71f2cb8cda5cb849
116862 F20101206_AABZKA sullivan_j_Page_028.jp2
d7e41830615e8f74383a5b56017d9402
f77df590106f0aebf88680b951d6905935ae3cf1
30356 F20101206_AABZJM sullivan_j_Page_172.QC.jpg
56b330a22ee4b8a0eb6a3edadbaa45bd
a52eab626f0313b4ae48294df02bd00ab0f9525a
2090 F20101206_AABZIY sullivan_j_Page_024.txt
f9ec10609fe966aa746ec281b7c06444
91fa117774de6496b7c9ce9b59e85784506910a2
1092 F20101206_AABYGK sullivan_j_Page_011.txt
42148a51527c3745f350ec2f6669a1ce
752084170c0339b79f1f4a23d2cc9ce941234449
3578 F20101206_AABYFW sullivan_j_Page_175.txt
30ab004bfdbe3f4ebe556bb4d6c8c468
eaa7a7a94144e719e4da76c6f4f5af5a956681c6
315 F20101206_AABZKB sullivan_j_Page_103.txt
d7aeda946d79fd165b312f9682727136
2fa488466a564a0bfd1b68b068cfa2d28487ccf9
F20101206_AABZJN sullivan_j_Page_058.tif
0021447be4fe4884098879da7de61e4b
be993c041aa988dfa09112cccd3d11d5c3b248e8
32941 F20101206_AABZIZ sullivan_j_Page_014.pro
2a9e088cdac657b625f969e9dba009ab
77f7d0ca842bcb7048f003644e608cbec666212e
14376 F20101206_AABYGL sullivan_j_Page_121.pro
0739c65fa3a57474caf23492b63d6b49
bc5ee24d708fd084b2837a917c42a8ae29900898
3640 F20101206_AABYFX sullivan_j_Page_117thm.jpg
f687266477d02a6880345589e07b9480
db0dcfa945ebfe6093c6e600b56a226b84d9eb94
759500 F20101206_AABZKC sullivan_j_Page_145.jp2
e45de4224d7ff7f3ed915a65a5835fc2
75f8b722e11faae0b589cc6bc3565c15e6d99789
F20101206_AABZJO sullivan_j_Page_080.tif
b2146aa073063febdd1eaa1228a2115a
d027e5b6261afed54b86bc27ca405aca557fa470
52502 F20101206_AABYHA sullivan_j_Page_030.pro
0d7f930e00e369a9079e30e94500c8be
ab200f1321871db9806b8b873d65c58b41715bf7
49271 F20101206_AABYGM sullivan_j_Page_078.jpg
b0bdc029acf1e4bc2059b4120e5a9bd9
746d0f7d991814452cd4863e25551f5af27f7b0c
16174 F20101206_AABYFY sullivan_j_Page_115.QC.jpg
69524c9d7f0013b446cab6221e8768b4
9b3ee8bc889f105779df4c5de0fc6ac198c73660
72447 F20101206_AABZKD sullivan_j_Page_146.jpg
b1e88d77ac3997482761fc2522ab5647
70b861731f2482cfb977086cc6d7d0cad3cb731c
85514 F20101206_AABZJP sullivan_j_Page_173.pro
08fb004e366a54e47dcc68427d0ff46e
ecab0ee574ff4cc62d13ffc75c80d9b6d7bff515
116596 F20101206_AABYHB sullivan_j_Page_039.jp2
e14c7c2bbbc4afa0f64944c7ace2f3cd
7141acd946bceecec07b1ebbc43b6b6bc36a2d7e
2168 F20101206_AABYGN sullivan_j_Page_016.txt
687388496af76ecf012cf4bb05644949
8f02cd36a641da6708b081926349af612b7a00be
3349 F20101206_AABZKE sullivan_j_Page_173.txt
033f25e329d4043b123a94569f0cac21
733f6ddc1ca48c36df3e42c822664db0e2623127
115905 F20101206_AABZJQ sullivan_j_Page_094.jp2
5a9784ad145322a2a43c1aeed7f25971
9f32fc0b541b3f19c50d4bb7c5c0fb592c15d023
152802 F20101206_AABYHC sullivan_j_Page_167.jp2
2cab81ce309159945754f57f80fee1cb
606a1fbc04b02d6298e43a418d8a04f12295ac79
160327 F20101206_AABYGO sullivan_j_Page_165.jp2
e98a7b6ed7456a9dd9edd90ffb35550f
2c1a7344fd01146a887fcb93a1d3fbfefc4631d6
103947 F20101206_AABYFZ sullivan_j_Page_025.jp2
a014c1ba4b21d494f67c2108227d2b13
4bb5ef7add102da73e1b7267c9d1257cfbeb79a4
F20101206_AABZKF sullivan_j_Page_062.tif
6ed9b2ba6529eaeaef13c6ffc8fa5851
84c9414e0bd0e06226c299e2a8e5ae10761eecc3
79882 F20101206_AABZJR sullivan_j_Page_188.jpg
92e758b8edfad19abde608452541dc79
1a0d0860b42600bd24dca7d6ddd1472b0013ed05
16782 F20101206_AABYHD sullivan_j_Page_114.QC.jpg
4ebd42514756b16d97f3d571b4b40d7e
172afec7f59ea01df9b26729386d8558db9a59dd
1990 F20101206_AABYGP sullivan_j_Page_055.txt
c2f8a13ddbd07db1920b38bb829e2f0e
4cd08183a63af71cc500a2c6daba817b993ebaaf
50149 F20101206_AABZKG sullivan_j_Page_091.pro
b75f0fc8fbc2006a9e27be64b45432a6
4abcd0261f9345b11e37db45293f19c1102a7d65
75352 F20101206_AABZJS sullivan_j_Page_074.jp2
d267ef6af8bfd72ad9a6a205524eb0dd
2875e9468be341db90b3ed8f123c73049ed87613
428450 F20101206_AABYHE sullivan_j_Page_102.jp2
a22fd7e00416fbf433ef942144611cab
6ea088061cf14466a0c64e007d09574334f12b6a
702391 F20101206_AABYGQ sullivan_j_Page_116.jp2
9b966beb819a46404ff2d114c1786e76
6cc9504cd775de1149d16600f8c04ffcfabf14fe
428 F20101206_AABZKH sullivan_j_Page_101.txt
dcfb26ed3a273909bc6996b6345d24cb
8ca16b60a273d94124d7765d9bd782f0311a88f6
F20101206_AABZJT sullivan_j_Page_179.tif
2d31e09208c0eae8dc2da621df505dfe
d4501d6ac04dbc8f3be5a582a488e6c847c68f69
30818 F20101206_AABYHF sullivan_j_Page_159.QC.jpg
0e94b231b3e193c19c03a2590ca91f1e
5d9bd5e04c9d75a11a333ca4cd3499237ef00e20
F20101206_AABYGR sullivan_j_Page_103.tif
60a63ec7e43935823df7df1593129bed
d66b273a5958650aaa986392cd7970b375a4ffc3
F20101206_AABZKI sullivan_j_Page_010.tif
7ca85763fc6ab05ad1dbdb158e68231a
8c7c340f011ac0c643cb48137145910b8803ae36
24164 F20101206_AABZJU sullivan_j_Page_053.QC.jpg
53f604a665ecb2d30d28506d2e15d6f6
8459bf481ad98cb5ff7a5feef830c2f7d8f3f300
82128 F20101206_AABYHG sullivan_j_Page_144.jpg
2094fbc6b9d45956e8c2725a4de68f8a
3707da75baaf153e0b6b4c800edc05c59d45e692
6886 F20101206_AABYGS sullivan_j_Page_087thm.jpg
d03e63e3869df06774effe7c86b7b023
cd74c0699c5c5046f461b63dcdff0c70875c225e
20783 F20101206_AABZKJ sullivan_j_Page_130.jpg
8b67d33e68f4d253813cb0de3481dd42
efae1f6806f27363c5429244cf88521f3159aa44
F20101206_AABZJV sullivan_j_Page_100.tif
1f7329529c5376d8305580a0d72b095f
12598a4e836ad1900cc22d5ac109805e737ca469
71804 F20101206_AABYHH sullivan_j_Page_017.jpg
4b7f5e80a4534d305d0626abd8829066
d5f78e815044b82cce4a7167d680e1d58040a345
13152 F20101206_AABYGT sullivan_j_Page_121.QC.jpg
300b31055f956f7b225154bbb5fa6c8d
413ca56f34ee8f8aa3fda592f12cd44de1d735e4
F20101206_AABZKK sullivan_j_Page_039.tif
e3651803f444ce2a3dfe7008c7660433
ae82b548667e48e2e5588c47f3af6acba4d6304b
6674 F20101206_AABZJW sullivan_j_Page_006thm.jpg
2e24133696b5c84e0b6a679d1b2dd4c8
0028efc9fddebee761bee9970c919483d815974b
8030 F20101206_AABYHI sullivan_j_Page_175thm.jpg
c6b8fec25f3ebb7efb4b92451448a9a2
4a4614e2a55ec500407464ec6a194269a2a296dc
97118 F20101206_AABYGU sullivan_j_Page_162.jpg
ebaabc2556601b1cf2d972badae0a739
d834fde5d2b579b2d2aa97cb6faf0e6b891e7941
15964 F20101206_AABZKL sullivan_j_Page_072.QC.jpg
68ebe546733d448d0bc94765ba72097c
fcb8d0a624421c14f2466de5d1a9995c32dd794c
77756 F20101206_AABZJX sullivan_j_Page_028.jpg
e49055ac02733310871d19a3b597d8bf
295b11d4ef285e6ca69876a6aa16b16cb017c778
6090 F20101206_AABYHJ sullivan_j_Page_069.QC.jpg
46e7c01ce0c1d437038bdd3bb98caec5
c7a0c4ebb5f2843f31c28fbb53fa3f0c860e8331
94726 F20101206_AABYGV sullivan_j_Page_166.jpg
058ecb1bb7473a5eac8030dec98bed18
d98c417da1a898483d4522172202cf690bc70ceb
606 F20101206_AABZLA sullivan_j_Page_136.txt
34dce722ab9d6f3a7e85158ca4e4a8fd
979781fd7bb88d3f2d88517fe41ee2bfbf2caefb
2057 F20101206_AABZKM sullivan_j_Page_146.txt
3bf0851940c1256a83a6ba84eeee43a9
a7b3e61386b3fd2b3a918428c8c239c82f2e3744
109955 F20101206_AABZJY sullivan_j_Page_093.jp2
818a2893e9306b5636bb57109cd71749
d8ed7c48e75c728f3d4e6ad26e047c338dcb75b0
34670 F20101206_AABYHK sullivan_j_Page_076.jp2
415ad0e05ce36c8d0d011b38f0353fdd
5e6256872e9da38c0397792f86143b8405f095af
3513 F20101206_AABYGW sullivan_j_Page_176.txt
1272189359ef62c80affc0ce7af79589
c7af99136ede7769a08b3f533b19c028c929164b
F20101206_AABZLB sullivan_j_Page_156.tif
1573c91318729e091dd2d4991b9e30dd
092ba5d18b2de79d9475d35598e2277ab27efb68
53552 F20101206_AABZKN sullivan_j_Page_056.pro
c8d4c7bc9dd35ed2761481ebeb0ffa83
8a01ff2c54e76c6a72010b8448ded145b88d450b
F20101206_AABZJZ sullivan_j_Page_048.tif
b18c21b0c0ae27895a94de758e4699dd
38cece11d6bfeea843692c70e44b1b768f3477f2
F20101206_AABYHL sullivan_j_Page_065.tif
b44ae5c0a55ab000be63722bfba627fb
fc5230b9082f9e521887c908be19979e3878aba9
779 F20101206_AABYGX sullivan_j_Page_119.txt
a93ec085d49ab12d77e15b7fe4f8231a
f5ae08376c8b3e6b712b2e485f56dea3e422c873
5046 F20101206_AABZLC sullivan_j_Page_125thm.jpg
61683515831276cd3eb095cd4184964b
52a0ff676b2908d76971aee71cc0a435c0a722d9
106480 F20101206_AABZKO sullivan_j_Page_045.jp2
9ae4cdd0e468d008a34dec8371174939
cce17d19f4bf8882e567aed447009845fa974908
395 F20101206_AABYHM sullivan_j_Page_130.txt
e99ff7c934a2e56e1ea5f72e83fcbd91
acf6bd4a26acd0c8446b6e161a875739ab1ab241
483134 F20101206_AABYGY sullivan_j_Page_139.jp2
05722484d4016f3931de0e8107d16710
8346867560c4bfc5770a4b4176258c5eda8a1914
1231 F20101206_AABYIA sullivan_j_Page_077.txt
e5e5983bf28d615fd118e49e75078ee5
c909e7ef6b6581bdcd240d616a0030f72d8dd710
76196 F20101206_AABZLD sullivan_j_Page_014.jp2
af40f17908e934f25e895d6440acdbb4
582459d10c6cca672ddadeefd3d6dc63dff80944
58114 F20101206_AABZKP sullivan_j_Page_010.pro
3d36b3b3815486ccdd616be9f9ea0206
24d291ae5efeb3b17eddfdf2a80ab1ab082e268c
34857 F20101206_AABYHN sullivan_j_Page_142.pro
372ce2c82bea6ab62ddde3a0f5b3f1a5
28497b22b2e76720337ca26cc8e4522a8bbb0233
21736 F20101206_AABYGZ sullivan_j_Page_083.QC.jpg
b8c189237ba9f510c8d8822a6828887b
4005a2e1da42b86c01657d315cdb7ac48435c1c5
26070 F20101206_AABYIB sullivan_j_Page_163.QC.jpg
5cb4b9d9aac45c818f46f0b333672315
049c45355db752430eb7b9b49872cbb83554bdab
71743 F20101206_AABZLE sullivan_j_Page_062.jpg
af6eb42ed047a2ec132e38dbed36c532
8849e61c86849c2c23ffe4f0307269c17c06830d
487 F20101206_AABZKQ sullivan_j_Page_105.txt
ee7c313b53684289a43c05b2662800c4
d95fba14381b2c74479262626a5667bd2743b290
6794 F20101206_AABYHO sullivan_j_Page_134thm.jpg
be6ac9eea38edf8adf865db52df7b16a
1796f0a3e8100ced8d49c61b1534ce8d24cd1e2a
2550 F20101206_AABYIC sullivan_j_Page_163.txt
71c15a75c81d522048170cadbc878db6
e794bca0f66b9e6f2079673de34f53ca99d49271
F20101206_AABZLF sullivan_j_Page_109.tif
ec4b013adea42ee85a3aca3febce78c9
a68d9cdcc86543a18c55df97b059d67e386090bc
47242 F20101206_AABZKR sullivan_j_Page_059.pro
eb805722d953aad1d000b87e7ac0356b
1ecbfe0116405798f79789fda4206c7c4328ad49
6879 F20101206_AABYHP sullivan_j_Page_052thm.jpg
33e82308e91d60f7c031075fafd42a9b
b38e21bae4ee4bdbf1ba53833a1d76c507e344c4
28216 F20101206_AABYID sullivan_j_Page_167.QC.jpg
d7d8cffc3445c23cfe852bb4d94fe492
465ce8bd01e2ca6ffe2bc488dbbf65fedcfdfdec
99540 F20101206_AABZLG sullivan_j_Page_020.jp2
76e08d945dc6fc7cd427177d05e66b50
c0784d9c8755406e6303aabecf708cb661350a09
2061 F20101206_AABZKS sullivan_j_Page_046.txt
3fc8e40dfc11401d2b61f72faf6f59d4
5552e3b44697e2a557b3697f4d6cc13e86d45cf5
2228 F20101206_AABYHQ sullivan_j_Page_084.txt
4b11d06bc43862b9f92a62f09c804778
28cb9069959c861e980f5873844ceb949f3a027d
7753 F20101206_AABYIE sullivan_j_Page_178thm.jpg
e9264761c487cd073d9bebabbec08948
a28a03f131e387ef364ae1fddd2a2a9cbbe87b99
F20101206_AABZLH sullivan_j_Page_073.tif
eb4510700a657fd2c8f1ddbf67dfd00f
3f036db5202a996da701f8dad9ca494e655073dc
958 F20101206_AABZKT sullivan_j_Page_128.txt
a9a38249e9b834a73a6524cbccaccc56
8f9add9e334e56495e8987917cae1319d62dff92
F20101206_AABYHR sullivan_j_Page_026.tif
8b81f1d6317cb5f3a2a7eb98fc9a286e
aad7776bd332b004dbfc9f29dfbec968bd14dcbd
91417 F20101206_AABYIF sullivan_j_Page_164.pro
06156e26dc53666939d7e35edb2c9ba2
f1b12d4800c7dee45e810e757da9c240eb68ba98
32066 F20101206_AABZLI sullivan_j_Page_176.QC.jpg
38c1491c369da8313a6077654b2103c8
60242b9c303e747db763c0bac29445db0c207d98
18108 F20101206_AABZKU sullivan_j_Page_073.pro
030ec733e618b5d220035cc076035e4e
6b0730dae2e64c9074f736ac3e19a80ee8df5729
75353 F20101206_AABYHS sullivan_j_Page_024.jpg
b3889d726e0a62c77f14a5e8643a1293
b8f6df8c23b1d4ce692fddc7821e8c9f15d45076
26170 F20101206_AABYIG sullivan_j_Page_188.QC.jpg
474c94e79f762dad9834cfa5862efd67
fce7fc50c5d122bfb3b99b28d1ccf35900bc1436
2279 F20101206_AABZLJ sullivan_j_Page_065.txt
6573916e22edef9ecc26e294898f8bc6
c5b1f6a0b0991671b38b865d5adab425076ddc80
4418 F20101206_AABZKV sullivan_j_Page_107thm.jpg
b57b11e31e6d4242f706418c9461592f
96572cc1449d946d5877beeebdd09e5dcb8f4a98
71419 F20101206_AABYHT sullivan_j_Page_063.jpg
652ecf22ed1b47175d060357c9a06c45
9bb3aee9ed5dfcf6a39a73119bf54996c52de0b1
68503 F20101206_AABYIH sullivan_j_Page_055.jpg
262b4cb811507a80051c44148c87ad6e
8e7b0079f10e34eb26b37fa7224f408c6bdb49bc
F20101206_AABZLK sullivan_j_Page_143.tif
f3e7d3838ffc4f514f0095a072a272fd
db623cb49a45a29e5cb9e6c5c3cd8b037d52f6b0
7340 F20101206_AABZKW sullivan_j_Page_105.QC.jpg
e78eb95e9011325cb00895c60abc21a0
71679b3287f55f48cff9feb20da46bf3b6a2fff2
6656 F20101206_AABYHU sullivan_j_Page_017thm.jpg
f48d695e5673437bc51071111210d9f4
9dc08ad44d7557344435fc793c684d5e8771edea
25018 F20101206_AABYII sullivan_j_Page_084.QC.jpg
2811f629fa52b962ca4738798b0c0ce7
8e5a86a1bad296a8fc3a03e09f0ddad87837d3c7
1648 F20101206_AABZLL sullivan_j_Page_124.txt
0fccd904e3f58b288879874b7a320ba8
33fbce5d190329790e1e28a3e3de48a0c575e561
49707 F20101206_AABZKX sullivan_j_Page_057.pro
53bde540f3900747a36b7d91b254f710
fbbdb632f978b1727d5251bb5adf7fd124aa2642
F20101206_AABYHV sullivan_j_Page_112.tif
8713899d5e35a4c1b01c3349c1a01d5c
71e9d255cdc8a891c09f1948cba698f6502651e9
F20101206_AABYIJ sullivan_j_Page_173.tif
2353eb2f111600d1140313648252ef5a
84649c78a4a56afd096991a41dbc0d9d6419be8d
52957 F20101206_AABZMA sullivan_j_Page_099.pro
3bed57ac249f75d5e87a38f49ec63206
f8c2c52ac11351f7a1edc51391768e2f2b08a0a8
24708 F20101206_AABZLM sullivan_j_Page_052.QC.jpg
421a1141e225ef7a8b1b2b7291acd3aa
5e946e57d11d9983a1e5f6f9c69f4655c7e74db0
F20101206_AABZKY sullivan_j_Page_045.tif
582dc4ad21fd7e851cb7096d45c61bbb
fac637b9ce24de1993f1f93374137834d5fd2494
44319 F20101206_AABYHW sullivan_j_Page_123.jpg
6b2f861e9a3e7690c9cb6c8e8ce7efdc
a5f24990b5f587fca7d0700c99745ded24d06876
50111 F20101206_AABYIK sullivan_j_Page_146.pro
f88709c1b2f5952fe7084af490253bc1
d3bc9724b4b9ea59df38d3a850960940b414da11
2083 F20101206_AABZMB sullivan_j_Page_038.txt
b4c129fccbfc5dceff97da88a7a28a8a
34a5151dd73c932a7f9afa02f18bd387932d6df5
F20101206_AABZLN sullivan_j_Page_104.tif
b8f7163fbfa125cfcf3bde56fc8cd2bd
edd9e88f3b164c92d02c1a7140122a8eca9ae6ee
506411 F20101206_AABZKZ sullivan_j_Page_104.jp2
50e0a9300e317ef4d5341992ef6abbc4
5e9ca372a2b963be42fd140dd48046edce485fab
3867 F20101206_AABYHX sullivan_j_Page_118thm.jpg
dcf6e54a45b83699659ece8644775886
1e1b3ffd7dc7df05bda148585415b25fedd7b4e0
5164 F20101206_AABYIL sullivan_j_Page_079thm.jpg
e89258fc3537aac137b80210fa3a3e50
066b0805c9436f5f7fa68e85e145fcbb4c8247f9
F20101206_AABZMC sullivan_j_Page_035.tif
f2f89f57bec7b1bcdc3aefc9ebfd06e4
df8f0f213e05400a9cdf8c789136e8f304bd58d6
79212 F20101206_AABZLO sullivan_j_Page_095.jpg
b06d1f1fa8db0a56c1b906728290faa5
878834244b6b1ef354a6477e0c5e52e5ce19adaa
13568 F20101206_AABYHY sullivan_j_Page_104.QC.jpg
871ec84b050c95321ca4ae02ffa5b3fa
43979a9729f1d16473ca90e292efde2f8700ebed
1727 F20101206_AABYJA sullivan_j_Page_143.txt
04eaacc9366862572b0912888d315bd9
44f8ca0a33b82f095a8082f6031ff065866a9459
1051960 F20101206_AABYIM sullivan_j_Page_187.jp2
086a60f57f920de39d92f689ef866adf
fed7fab5d78b64683394928ff5af5bf6d11935e2
7504 F20101206_AABZMD sullivan_j_Page_168thm.jpg
b0a615a9ad3676378ba7206da6ac11ac
adb963b92fe86b97197cdf22f37ab02db7c27ca3
13848 F20101206_AABZLP sullivan_j_Page_102.pro
fc5ab36d7e3f8922992e460316d84d3b
a27c37e8deab30a356fbc33c5942095010c9b63d
2005 F20101206_AABYHZ sullivan_j_Page_138.txt
d20473e45b3c645fedd00b7b73678da5
06e1294a586afd006c4bcd14d75eaa7acabadd39
34445 F20101206_AABYJB sullivan_j_Page_143.pro
73b5f2e3af75a030b32114dd42a1c0f4
2fab9b04926e56b1cfcb8a5a6894af81a4fa0caa
173772 F20101206_AABYIN sullivan_j_Page_168.jp2
1de7c29dbc62f6d72234a94487621094
b3f648e250de932623bb7ef566fc9c1d5f0b0afd
60469 F20101206_AABZME sullivan_j_Page_185.pro
0ac99d4ad4ee3d525941012577d62dcd
5a70a438d0f31e7b6d6f4f4e13db8cb518985c2d
F20101206_AABZLQ sullivan_j_Page_043.tif
d8b5802e508647631251d85a335e05ba
4e1d1d8eb0961d833b9ebdcc9e73b81d316c845d
140365 F20101206_AABYJC sullivan_j_Page_171.jp2
2bfdd3219fed7dc386f3878190e41238
0c2ded3dca62e4d9d7044aef51ca164d8cd4af4e
1689 F20101206_AABYIO sullivan_j_Page_075.txt
84e9e9cec581bd2791dc425a5f313f53
0e0bca17a0c11cf49799da66a7397bcb1b014b9b
124522 F20101206_AABZMF sullivan_j_Page_175.jpg
7f3d938b0c076662a9dfe27b9292fa6f
b582d5d0eb59ffdfd71ca5ffda5b2902d164c0ee
3028 F20101206_AABZLR sullivan_j_Page_165.txt
c697672e8acbdfd5f50fb7ff42d9a1e4
755302e20d1bae3b41bf9095e3fea3e97ef19df9
1051959 F20101206_AABYJD sullivan_j_Page_185.jp2
0c220d122bc6a174dc6bbbaabeef0453
3bbff9b1a59ccbe08fc0465adfbdbdd975667f77
3407 F20101206_AABYIP sullivan_j_Page_170.txt
a6b6553504ae9c5c791cfebca7025f8f
3d64d05898379160ccce145e76745f98cc39397a
84523 F20101206_AABZMG sullivan_j_Page_075.jp2
22589b43282fbad3a8f9a9bb6cc7885a
3aef0578c78f5d1e67a01e9aba1be6dee972d3c2
55476 F20101206_AABZLS sullivan_j_Page_023.pro
b24d83ad5b1e8a4e230f3fe9d09fc88e
d2c69a91e0db11e5640d99a89b98d6d40e7e2215
7648 F20101206_AABYJE sullivan_j_Page_170thm.jpg
2aeec9df3497b1598fe3a528f6b11e9e
4c4b0067479d220b8271aeafbc19c22259dc86a2
F20101206_AABYIQ sullivan_j_Page_170.tif
20ef10d0ad59d889d54b678677c4bf89
35b58a010d206830e9dd9361ebb82da05f117daa
54523 F20101206_AABZMH sullivan_j_Page_100.jpg
8c044c11e1eac8791a5db4bb990cd7b1
4f25aaa200ef4c26f87172dd30a7f5e9c6582f4f
2267 F20101206_AABZLT sullivan_j_Page_113.txt
fd2836cc3a9ef0a087aac9249bb7032f
90f4cd413649be83522fb68fceb1a8d881fc76c2
83378 F20101206_AABYJF sullivan_j_Page_088.jpg
228efa9dff29216792297e9152cec12e
28320cebd96bad8b50ffd4b2683894a4f05b7f17
704 F20101206_AABYIR sullivan_j_Page_108.txt
dad51e8a1fa8385896329f104a87cc1b
73d9a293fd21e6411f217183aca4c634596809fd
24645 F20101206_AABZMI sullivan_j_Page_046.QC.jpg
32375bebc8ac725f3459c91c2e6e3359
4d8d13b4682a2d986141293696ae213ffe92e094
116618 F20101206_AABZLU sullivan_j_Page_032.jp2
892a968c91099c127ee5f4d87dfd85b2
4cf386a54fad36b6399fda4b48ee04f6964daa3e
56759 F20101206_AABYJG sullivan_j_Page_095.pro
d335cbdc46d918dde3e06446879d0128
30d831233f8d98e8e757785481e82f675a72b336
26111 F20101206_AABYIS sullivan_j_Page_161.QC.jpg
7c78df6e4ce2f2a3974fc8cec8ac07be
cb1ecd5e52d3214038a382e37e1b0c2e07d73ea8
6498 F20101206_AABZMJ sullivan_j_Page_144thm.jpg
a6b59b74f3f5208aa2b84b021d2d3d45
66b525bd2848664f253940a38c199109882e30d6
F20101206_AABZLV sullivan_j_Page_134.tif
9cbd8d6044a00f2b2261c22ad91be27d
9865858ab5f89dc0caa9c06247c2aa6c3eed8df3
41742 F20101206_AABYJH sullivan_j_Page_070.jp2
44e96de727dd5663e3b93d1ccd7a2582
a9ceaccae36c6d5cf21d2ca99de8194c833c3c5d
F20101206_AABYIT sullivan_j_Page_092.tif
7790f19ecf0983d2c77023394818429d
25e9ce83dedbcefff6948d8e97c69e67f7dc4dfd
76548 F20101206_AABZMK sullivan_j_Page_049.jpg
246764f4552420712c922c5b47869763
4c41bc7a98d7e2079eaf27e61c890aecdfa861b0
121654 F20101206_AABZLW sullivan_j_Page_029.jp2
8022c3dbce7111f7c166cdd2c56044d2
2a1ad2f527220b3f35c25d2975f6c41185bb5975
83595 F20101206_AABYJI sullivan_j_Page_153.pro
52d3b3b4e25f458f866c68aebc34de31
e6c5aba952f2b5fd262c29c681b169642c642906
22669 F20101206_AABYIU sullivan_j_Page_025.QC.jpg
c464cc1cad9cf6dd3e19251ad068b3ac
0ba03f6e94b3e92dd78f68582734cdc2bfafabe5
80913 F20101206_AABZML sullivan_j_Page_100.jp2
bf7aecf7d8dd6e27be9bd0fa919580fd
cff12def0fe28d33f23dbb5882024c019816f598
F20101206_AABZLX sullivan_j_Page_063.tif
71f6f8dc6960c76f43bff315bd945cb4
0e13dc955451bbcd1789ec298e44fcda1fd4dd43
47537 F20101206_AABYJJ sullivan_j_Page_139.jpg
404b2f45fc73da8bd843c0aa010c8874
e3df06c2d67228a51f26e957b615607ef63655eb
5822 F20101206_AABYIV sullivan_j_Page_019thm.jpg
f2b5354fc59225f01e91296ddd06f387
0e6108e692ff18208dbf7d466515a57f4157c7ef
6709 F20101206_AABZNA sullivan_j_Page_099thm.jpg
e0918d24e982cc379dc2a39ba4c47339
63afe8c4e52313719a9460468dd9d45d9db7a3be
2144 F20101206_AABZMM sullivan_j_Page_052.txt
b3ff077b199240c510bf94b2e1d2adb6
bf07febf8e3d91fc9aefd0520b90108653d35b1f
30548 F20101206_AABZLY sullivan_j_Page_168.QC.jpg
9730e36ab1bdd6993801fc0b0c3e13b1
97903c06c45dc96f56787b0a59ecd03b001596f8
47781 F20101206_AABYJK sullivan_j_Page_025.pro
5a616995810fdaca07874d1afd4215e3
c645e41543e74b91381715c25bb660c82a0c9df6
7810 F20101206_AABYIW sullivan_j_Page_153thm.jpg
9bb680a7ff09eebcd772092a8947c28e
022c3208937b21e551d9e1a7bd31cb80c70100b7
F20101206_AABZNB sullivan_j_Page_056.tif
fa0cac5af0375a2b914303d83815cafe
4797fae2254e297939700219922e29095ed419ec
75647 F20101206_AABZMN sullivan_j_Page_038.jpg
a83fe0d735ff469a955601c230084ce8
dd7474c1a32933771622c363a51e18b1aeca9a1f
6889 F20101206_AABZLZ sullivan_j_Page_163thm.jpg
817e54fa66cb6c2c33981f4d75c256c4
f5743cda4997fcab2b731da79fbe98b04dcb3292
6752 F20101206_AABYJL sullivan_j_Page_089thm.jpg
764e2064c5422160d95b9384379dabc2
c96eda0e8a7bfe134b19dc26b70e82f4884c28b0
56653 F20101206_AABYIX sullivan_j_Page_116.jpg
25ba3abb17277e702895135bcfefcbc5
87fa5b4bde567afb9cc0b99cab625cb2e01d1859
F20101206_AABZNC sullivan_j_Page_129.tif
1395bd051a371d09c618e64f432567b5
0d765348d37a2d897e6a49171925ca5961283706
2466 F20101206_AABZMO sullivan_j_Page_185.txt
fe087e7be39aebfcb24bb0169fbd4fbc
86a40300bfc2a135cec0d8267126b8a0754f7078
4254 F20101206_AABYKA sullivan_j_Page_115thm.jpg
da31ea8f46c7283140a13758579882cf
fed8425ab43b9ec0379980eead4037af0d4db060
189477 F20101206_AABYJM sullivan_j_Page_160.jp2
6099a99745f5e8b2abe8332d8d6a55e4
66e1e19669260bcad2266bf5c8968e048b3c1dde
1959 F20101206_AABYIY sullivan_j_Page_045.txt
1c1ebe532a5bd3755597443d7856540f
a5cad821fd4a624279cb4cc6e6b87a448bf53412
792 F20101206_AABZND sullivan_j_Page_117.txt
789fc58378437e8989ab2d40ae7b598b
4ff544b0e8c8903c5de17acc4ba49482faff04b9
44836 F20101206_AABZMP sullivan_j_Page_118.jpg
39b07ee0b68e8c3ec2d7e5ab31242f33
eb88e4c9937c5e5dce1a741f9ebac9ee18774b59
76715 F20101206_AABYKB sullivan_j_Page_094.jpg
7dd615c649d7d9844f8fab3142f1b8a2
f364bf58184db845d3ddc11500d664b56cd51e2a
2147 F20101206_AABYJN sullivan_j_Page_036.txt
5c3020a5abcb7b6e397b47e92b98fede
a1ddd50874c693b4ca49b35090b99899fd273d38
10728 F20101206_AABYIZ sullivan_j_Page_102.QC.jpg
61cbe5c173eef73b958a8a61a2add8fe
329320aeac66a44fc5f8c74753b928ac89be3c96
111892 F20101206_AABZNE sullivan_j_Page_135.jp2
f21601bbc4bee74bbb289ae25f6ef532
fe65867bfc74d86d496b492c9455eb32409b8c83
F20101206_AABZMQ sullivan_j_Page_023.tif
956d40fd5f459bd4bbf1df4c3d0df28d
5219423a019067cc758b17f59576ece7f69be493
F20101206_AABYKC sullivan_j_Page_066.tif
0fb83a4f4017f4372c57fb4961146132
b85e64c9f6bfc9da1926ffd37bccee9f28aa303b
66685 F20101206_AABYJO sullivan_j_Page_151.pro
72a8e094b98f9ff3898ad25e6efc764e
f583fc6aff50e7e7e61cc35d1c289a90b1107d30
26464 F20101206_AABZNF sullivan_j_Page_184.jp2
e8541e4ae4ce72d5093c46f0f45b08b9
ed8e8f6055d1b4f0732e7740f8996faf72e89f03
143821 F20101206_AABZMR sullivan_j_Page_166.jp2
2adcf26c1dc7744c4150a1305bfa8aa2
b5b5fe36258dbb58903f046fa2dbbeb6174476ea
5274 F20101206_AABYKD sullivan_j_Page_100thm.jpg
46e001fb85fe8220a6e9b065f789413c
9b3e242734dafa84c097dfcd8e5659c88841f7b0
7478 F20101206_AABYJP sullivan_j_Page_156thm.jpg
96da39759b63d6f6de3cffe38fc30353
fb8885a47322a8bc8d69e18477de24eb86d1ca14
1078 F20101206_AABZNG sullivan_j_Page_123.txt
476d3d13e39cb8820f623ad9762fa6aa
c25d7f2362871961275c22d12c58b40bbc0a97a6
138 F20101206_AABZMS sullivan_j_Page_150.txt
2e59f9e3f100ca22a1dd92285aa06630
92b1744ce9461e894454dd07ff09224f6c1b7512
7851 F20101206_AABYKE sullivan_j_Page_157thm.jpg
3070fcb4228f8971f6f6c70d929930ba
67918d45bb69cb66d0fe74c1f533795b78a1baf5
20405 F20101206_AABYJQ sullivan_j_Page_182.QC.jpg
f4b8749c1a412bebaec8f7cbeb94be68
c8559c2e427013ae9cd49cc251847e851f8295d9
F20101206_AABZNH sullivan_j_Page_126.tif
f5912f37fd6ff192674e3068ca65a83b
ef965efa1df97444c1d9d4a8afe3de896ba71be1
F20101206_AABZMT sullivan_j_Page_046.tif
ffbf312845615bc9404086a25e194a4e
4b6e74be51e59e719ff33bafb534e6d3b40f6ee1
31137 F20101206_AABYKF sullivan_j_Page_153.QC.jpg
de116e43371f2788d9f33c2fa169e5ff
7d3c93bcdd43884864c698fdeb54cbe1b19b3cdd
52133 F20101206_AABYJR sullivan_j_Page_046.pro
eab43ebf5ef755f6917a08b2baaaea8d
fbe19fc6d046101a0797259ba14d81b61ce6b527
6660 F20101206_AABZNI sullivan_j_Page_038thm.jpg
78171d72d2827883c8b013cb33901dcf
f7422d9e4baf57f458fca54d7ddee9f5c2d3ac18
F20101206_AABZMU sullivan_j_Page_132.tif
3b05136adb02edf812df3aea0b676e48
75372231d5ee594bde70859648a6df1f50b9f50b
25624 F20101206_AABYKG sullivan_j_Page_088.QC.jpg
44c14b126c699e065e60580fa1a72d2e
c1a13b2747770dcf22430969873d5658ad48bf70
51470 F20101206_AABYJS sullivan_j_Page_135.pro
e819f25d38461315d9e0a922258cd13f
4fcaed668a371650e121d127164e354aee11869a
132092 F20101206_AABZNJ sullivan_j_Page_179.jp2
22e349a1cf37b5bfe974e5c3a2d32470
30a0d66e9ba2d33e9d9ff054a59f6e8e5afe5896
2383 F20101206_AABZMV sullivan_j_Page_022.txt
6f83a16e247efca5d7266bb303ed8def
533ae95f4c0e00e522f0dd5c9cf1bbeffc276a73
507 F20101206_AABYKH sullivan_j_Page_069.txt
df1989da7d0454252896d906d5b0659d
8e53c379531cfb90e5f0589788c7f6ecce03e8f7
550988 F20101206_AABYJT sullivan_j_Page_126.jp2
a537876434bce34f02b1ed47b3a8f59b
3322c7a1a2aaae65b715ac92f5e7cdf5bfcef22f
44513 F20101206_AABZNK sullivan_j_Page_144.pro
c4e6669d3f821fcbae72909c29183fff
65db1c53b708bd01cb2a4531e99648059eb56e7b
27855 F20101206_AABZMW sullivan_j_Page_076.jpg
15de4712b324da5d003cb1045ed95618
3fc15938b1990df90d88b88791e0340282ce6ea9
1037071 F20101206_AABYKI sullivan_j_Page_124.jp2
1a47ad96533d5f49467a7b70858dc83c
dbf6b79391a8fcb72a735fccb2f2a885f914275b
7230 F20101206_AABYJU sullivan_j_Page_001.QC.jpg
34ef31f3b36eb27c383bab2408e9a14b
505fab80a46564b3e905988ea73e689bbcbc4405
79939 F20101206_AABZOA sullivan_j_Page_029.jpg
664bcadc60cb61b62e0504b5568045ba
4be85f70279e72f43739ac1104d1c1ec5ebec5c8
7536 F20101206_AABZNL sullivan_j_Page_181thm.jpg
0d0d3d33767bf7b800709c899590f9f5
21a1e223a2b8c20b6e6fc31e262f1f5e66d95bfc
54284 F20101206_AABZMX sullivan_j_Page_036.pro
98c003cbb3c7280c3587b1ea9ebc8d92
76bc45678683b1885e63919a27b93f9cb56f8a52
114913 F20101206_AABYKJ sullivan_j_Page_132.jp2
b394ef7c8f7bd60dc2fe8fd308e856b1
1f06b5f4b4cca9a8eb7d4b135226ace2c405595c
58835 F20101206_AABYJV sullivan_j_Page_077.jpg
ba2ac5e03869db39f4a567b705314b2f
43fbed385e0544afe867886681756da58005f592
F20101206_AABZNM sullivan_j_Page_067.tif
64e5279547bcdc032c1de01c809b7eba
d2af0221d29ed41a871d26ae616fe55c6f5dafe0
30450 F20101206_AABZMY sullivan_j_Page_004.jpg
af1d9703ba15548e0fad2cfbb5cf2380
972de46ff1470e65116e3cd23fee352390f6fcce
6446 F20101206_AABYKK sullivan_j_Page_045thm.jpg
f301b94d9ea3f4355522fb18a6355bd7
f34640292357cee62feaa8941613fd4c228d17b1
26406 F20101206_AABYJW sullivan_j_Page_029.QC.jpg
cf528e63096fca0e1a98ad4661f240df
9abc61ebef4722475cd25ba64ad533876b537bc7
77692 F20101206_AABZOB sullivan_j_Page_039.jpg
1145e5d2a896cdca10a69b75469336b3
917670e5f3462be1f53fca7c92f955b7c2670b92
66072 F20101206_AABZNN sullivan_j_Page_148.jpg
3a2dbac5e0164e1ed54bcdb46edbae1f
67a9a47bf6d0376e078d48a80a852bfec6a16735
11362 F20101206_AABZMZ sullivan_j_Page_129.QC.jpg
5afa1c53f3a4d4d320619baccf3d83bb
7ded49f0091ab90e170af79beda3beae9a5eb632
7812 F20101206_AABYKL sullivan_j_Page_160thm.jpg
e48595d428fe7aa90fc2e714dbc20196
69d7da1e370f7d8ae2145036b6ed2e1aca2adf4d
56788 F20101206_AABYJX sullivan_j_Page_113.pro
0e41cf982a73f60e8861e54b4385d914
f6d3451bc936337e5b95cb04fce22da7871a1633
70833 F20101206_AABZOC sullivan_j_Page_040.jpg
07ecb3a386d6abf862451b8029b476bb
483f147ce71aa15e34c9dc22fe4ce3a2f3e1b0c6
218056 F20101206_AABZNO UFE0021378_00001.mets FULL
10cbd08e6ea6ef2cbdc7dd9b0a553779
58ad85e717dcd9763712b0fea4e03dafdb7f527b
27403 F20101206_AABYKM sullivan_j_Page_078.pro
05829c3b79cb5c9810c8cf99247a5cce
af85a701679db2511da586c8be6d6c5ad3440e61
1051969 F20101206_AABYJY sullivan_j_Page_007.jp2
ce9530b8852a9dceee2ef96893418fec
b8e1ecc19546b9a9d5a4dd9674e2256de87ff080
71489 F20101206_AABYLA sullivan_j_Page_152.pro
0aac27c03df06c001e340667cbe43564
bfc1b4a2a4c9e7c4daa7c50267d2684d97d474bf
77323 F20101206_AABZOD sullivan_j_Page_041.jpg
f393ab4cff66fa4efbe7d4462fe94268
b1105bcb5ab08ff642c2c84e9893325b3a9b73f6
119646 F20101206_AABYKN sullivan_j_Page_113.jp2
28a867fed72c7bcb16b2d824ea304cb2
21e98cd9b96992f5d7a1fccc0df12c286f6cd33b
95711 F20101206_AABYJZ sullivan_j_Page_110.jp2
c4889203c34bd2f7e1cb48c0b05a2fa4
9150dd84b8c8f03afae8a4806b8f0c424937428b
24322 F20101206_AABYLB sullivan_j_Page_093.QC.jpg
ed39e7e2663ff3a30d744c63f89a5689
eba69529fe83185c035bb76ed6ac0543b6157cd8
71826 F20101206_AABZOE sullivan_j_Page_043.jpg
578e07c9c3259c16a158460a83dac7d1
c3415e65492ae8ccec62ab386581945129e8335e
91113 F20101206_AABYLC sullivan_j_Page_151.jpg
c8fa018ff76e3451c26fbf47626e399f
a620b72c15e5a120c35ce56943231489abf09ddb
111631 F20101206_AABYKO sullivan_j_Page_090.jp2
f5b829af968061c3cb58309703555dd3
935a19c06102f9514ffd5421f815b787c35871ee
74160 F20101206_AABZOF sullivan_j_Page_051.jpg
ad1caab92cea17b32d04b86796c96078
885d69a260988ca005cc0121ddc36eb86f4bb3b9
136772 F20101206_AABZNR sullivan_j_Page_008.jpg
6dec41772feeb9e4f71ef222bcc8f5c4
ebc723d0b01b940fec12f2bf2972e8f9882f4073
3135 F20101206_AABYLD sullivan_j_Page_174.txt
bb2090354361b786d6d73c9cd8c703a7
f8d04b6a1ddafe75f38bdcb35ba995b5cb5b37e6
F20101206_AABYKP sullivan_j_Page_165.tif
35d54476d01adee28e9c85c6372a4a0d
c7d4dde61943d392e434e314ffb230786f845c60
76880 F20101206_AABZOG sullivan_j_Page_052.jpg
44c15948bc3f709dc0a43322aed1090a
5862fff3e10a300444e7b9dd61d9e6d163e49aa3
69037 F20101206_AABZNS sullivan_j_Page_009.jpg
7dc4f8c5906a691a7dbf8076671dd68c
5dc75c19b7abe68c7574a0673cf33d8c22313d02
F20101206_AABYLE sullivan_j_Page_059.tif
98a60ee877e23bbe4485a4e4f1b07965
e56c991a2504c865b85535232f8688839627505a
4657 F20101206_AABYKQ sullivan_j_Page_072thm.jpg
a8f692cbb12ea98236277167aaa962ba
3af39e3f61b9b234dc7beb804d098d35b1b46012
71540 F20101206_AABZOH sullivan_j_Page_054.jpg
02622a376b84aba1182de468e0df5a9d
8ab7e36ed55bf51a46b20136731e5ae36ebfddc0
80905 F20101206_AABZNT sullivan_j_Page_012.jpg
086abc5f14e26ff3a7e7aa03fe188a9a
b83d72035938157a6fc6b5783ca5b2b6d5ed1a87
21045 F20101206_AABYLF sullivan_j_Page_096.QC.jpg
319960c71c7a34367749078aabe5a1cf
84677107c1ad596b9cc2510f5d24353f6e94b593
F20101206_AABYKR sullivan_j_Page_121.tif
640ce87e6feb6cfee0f59197654f2135
8f64ac86ab863fa15f5446c43a39b605176a5943
75884 F20101206_AABZOI sullivan_j_Page_056.jpg
55e3cdbc7d2d72913c93c2d0e976843e
9e456cf61606a51df97a9c38aac6eb992291c3c1
40196 F20101206_AABZNU sullivan_j_Page_013.jpg
a68d39672addbc78c858598d9f8b34ed
4e115425669cd2f5a51e4b572757add1e95a745a
74079 F20101206_AABYLG sullivan_j_Page_048.jpg
deb035a792ee8fb3b9a1fddb7cd55c80
92b40c31f95c622b412c6203a3cee622be461489
17512 F20101206_AABYKS sullivan_j_Page_009.QC.jpg
b8b6df5ba0669c733195d5429ad5fbdc
0938324ee1bc65fcd133f7f7bdd5af1d6ea88cf5
73381 F20101206_AABZOJ sullivan_j_Page_057.jpg
92668630a378f7f97255a0240a124e58
b66c3c0a7d91764395425360b99c65be53a98db5
53613 F20101206_AABZNV sullivan_j_Page_014.jpg
232368b888662ad3fc894fc6e5e50d2a
d0f476e695647285e3eabff1284ad691b9138d93
1609 F20101206_AABYLH sullivan_j_Page_019.txt
223f5dc1bb581bb13cbf43261f52b92c
4f3c8d209a0d5ef56a5cc4c489f88e2461a2cdd6
488117 F20101206_AABYKT sullivan_j_Page_122.jp2
955de3c5201e8c8c89d2fe9685c6d022
13dde23be33c4dbcbffc9347b863ee1673ea8365
23614 F20101206_AABZOK sullivan_j_Page_067.jpg
7a8d4df27ebecd11c802fe3916027f95
fb937f310cc854b2a1fd86816b1e5fc58b569be3
65095 F20101206_AABZNW sullivan_j_Page_020.jpg
d01da6aa7b22ad16a11cb70f96c0ad0f
f06fd209bb9c48908fa058eb0c60a150829e3413
86605 F20101206_AABYLI sullivan_j_Page_168.pro
e31e031b0390ded440cf2d5adae21013
d87b06283aa5513db6d44ce1cbda82d841980b19
16816 F20101206_AABYKU sullivan_j_Page_104.pro
b2b4c8a662324421ad7514927402e8af
46ad914d0f3e54f3935b905683b3d7bc5986865d
69178 F20101206_AABZPA sullivan_j_Page_145.jpg
a5c392c9e27a704d4712e864d591637e
e42736d6a37a13a0c11f4b34891997afc14ef58a
28201 F20101206_AABZOL sullivan_j_Page_068.jpg
1ff1826c0ebdbccf8ef6156689696482
5eaeebb3506068c168c90e38d368eb64fbb837e5
78579 F20101206_AABZNX sullivan_j_Page_023.jpg
d2e4340294aa3d5a0762c2b5b2739063
fe8abddc069be00ef0493cc9181a18296ecc49bf
13283 F20101206_AABYLJ sullivan_j_Page_108.pro
01577ed685df1e30d8088e3ad9c4a4fa
a6b11fc48e6156e23eccbd937daa34d59668ba6b
5539 F20101206_AABYKV sullivan_j_Page_077thm.jpg
b01dbf40153dbbb006c107f5f98fa04e
36497c63a52f2f54e63e1a46a8a88faa2ec0f55c
117688 F20101206_AABZPB sullivan_j_Page_154.jpg
771f14966b6f52c2be63959d15a2510e
1b198e7041f4c4652d35d98a8c0a10f630c6744b
18672 F20101206_AABZOM sullivan_j_Page_071.jpg
a15477eaba6cbee4f6e71055503399c0
92bfa3df16b4281f03d599047bbdd55e5e294c37
70072 F20101206_AABZNY sullivan_j_Page_025.jpg
ec341288d9ba61b16510183216867d8b
3256cf904238790c2f3d07108db3f6d7edcce4f6
25167 F20101206_AABYLK sullivan_j_Page_107.pro
4e2df6d7663835c9fe06bb06d2e6700d
675067ab972e53161727f6dccef83a7eb895594b
96817 F20101206_AABYKW sullivan_j_Page_185.jpg
ccdcbf2b64d9b42b38089bf8adfe92de
c1e4d8d521b6c0dbde34f2283c90d18ea8105253
54456 F20101206_AABZON sullivan_j_Page_074.jpg
2a6da5028a497d47c2571f9b36db5e5d
ec7bde5e287eb843b6a2f5226ec6d8e62e60fd8f
77279 F20101206_AABZNZ sullivan_j_Page_027.jpg
19f4e5c8457056773db120803b6b0a18
de01bf6af089d82a135ed1776daae87ecc7cd74f
182839 F20101206_AABYLL sullivan_j_Page_164.jp2
f07ef635f3cee698ecf67e3c75ad7418
54c64082147f1d929476cd672b083309ffc3a2f7
121899 F20101206_AABYKX sullivan_j_Page_156.jpg
25b98cf51684ecc40003c606776bcbc2
72aac6528431f484fbb450591386f770b4aef5e6
107449 F20101206_AABZPC sullivan_j_Page_155.jpg
0276464a419038bca5406098e02addd5
a5ca7614cd50b96d605b6f71657a3677ade7845f
58766 F20101206_AABZOO sullivan_j_Page_075.jpg
8586f037da7044b1873e808d2cd7644d
183005bbcd967e9de03f16aac28e32d61c89c47c
112919 F20101206_AABYMA sullivan_j_Page_033.jp2
ab1d854156e0e2982267cd0e799f3671
46ceca3802ae8e85e74f36873a35d478750fc6ce
92564 F20101206_AABYLM sullivan_j_Page_175.pro
2fab8e3b0187a6b9754cd7a1832affad
ae59be7e4bfbdb4e0b634046974fc44eff770fd7
125358 F20101206_AABYKY sullivan_j_Page_160.jpg
64dba22f7a982447414818338578cffc
97f93858dadc1d4d8ec64d1732aaa92a78f4a548
110845 F20101206_AABZPD sullivan_j_Page_172.jpg
0e767033f92c3948700aeafe72a98a98
906c72713806932345276dc3923dbac65b841448
58265 F20101206_AABZOP sullivan_j_Page_079.jpg
8e55e5ce5dd485711c90d5e132c6c1fb
2187cd34efb89a4dcb87176b16758650f329d6a7
24663 F20101206_AABYMB sullivan_j_Page_030.QC.jpg
be903504f5e37f10ed38ac99b31e1dc2
50f8399f54144c530a2b8c0fc0e8a3003caf60c6
52888 F20101206_AABYLN sullivan_j_Page_066.pro
92e7b87dc6cb3f9df810444c256c5e44
270eaee5c9a6a14bf46f4c179ba0837ded7b78f9
13291 F20101206_AABYKZ sullivan_j_Page_070.pro
9ae2d4dd81303ece8768b9c0ad138935
d1488e12c3abc73a8c37c3fd5bd538d25389b41a
109534 F20101206_AABZPE sullivan_j_Page_174.jpg
4c0ff37a24a0ce243e9a364a61c18dda
5f5af1aedeb94c981d3942e917231f051b25eccb
77057 F20101206_AABZOQ sullivan_j_Page_084.jpg
d14c36e603351f0c0d88af152b422455
c0cb2cd58046c8793889ea3b75497f0da0f3417f
26687 F20101206_AABYMC sullivan_j_Page_179.QC.jpg
c80ae419b8fd705cbefdda3ad6f4be98
952d3accaea7c3598f7a7a04e570ae4069676d14
25277 F20101206_AABYLO sullivan_j_Page_016.QC.jpg
9c191526de3ed83fc9d4899aadd27900
6db6bdbc2b1bcbd9d203400cc13bd9aef7c424c8
100026 F20101206_AABZPF sullivan_j_Page_181.jpg
3528fca0e77fed607f7fb985b0f2f451
de3b4054222775360dad2e1b964d32a4b479f0a4
63592 F20101206_AABZOR sullivan_j_Page_096.jpg
c7211f366fc46a6fae4a5b020fddd476
ae13aad5df6f2e87c7e63f5d391692d85d8db45e
77456 F20101206_AABYMD sullivan_j_Page_165.pro
fa18e11bc824b701be87b5113c64cce0
4a0249c918069f49183b477d4a08c75f66ec9dec
2721 F20101206_AABYLP sullivan_j_Page_161.txt
d1a59aa63bc6e20b45362f64c9687c13
9b2bdb6fc5660919f6804d379bc3cd05de12baf0
24515 F20101206_AABZPG sullivan_j_Page_184.jpg
9efd2d4d1f14bdb846f9769892489bb4
cb501dd362af74f8e22c77e02b7a384663dc68b4
44590 F20101206_AABZOS sullivan_j_Page_104.jpg
c831d9772b629107e456131be7b58bf7
64123422a9db38cf9b7bc4aed35c3fd2cd453c21
F20101206_AABYME sullivan_j_Page_127.tif
8fb442188e7af0adf8948f1ffe86fa12
b3fc5b9b523d49a3ebf170ff35b3f8e10e21b71e
52325 F20101206_AABYLQ sullivan_j_Page_034.pro
d089746e94ea2c1a5da11407578b1e67
12eefd934d28b642a7c4a10ad27f685928aa3cfc
5293 F20101206_AABZPH sullivan_j_Page_002.jp2
8c68d99ff5ebc42a0dcb5316ce34aa41
099cea655dfa18d4d08dedd1376be51c16ad2766
63124 F20101206_AABZOT sullivan_j_Page_110.jpg
a2ff9c542aa97cf82ec90878a33afc84
0dcf228df59b6d67d5ef61518bd15067d97aa915
142740 F20101206_AABYMF sullivan_j_Page_152.jp2
8707cf7258af2d0e7d1627b69efb1092
bc8eb152d9fea1f68f056bb4c96857944ba7746d
25895 F20101206_AABYLR sullivan_j_Page_095.QC.jpg
7b24cc0ba4cf459cb0a60272f0690442
f27724a3bb45766068b1149a12ca63e82529164f
4907 F20101206_AABZPI sullivan_j_Page_003.jp2
f1473b88c7c286d42edb5976eec30b7b
d3d3c5b6e757aa6c51ad2c2fa1bad4be35036e4b
78272 F20101206_AABZOU sullivan_j_Page_113.jpg
a404fe3fbcf2643c33028a34350f7543
49e4ec20d994c74933d2f8d06ec71709baf35d12
49328 F20101206_AABYMG sullivan_j_Page_045.pro
af88f51b0f278617e91d7dd3af32c072
a68ace48879c375cad9484d01730471156b93257
80540 F20101206_AABYLS sullivan_j_Page_174.pro
66e31a8379f0d64a7e998a25b4295f2b
939816a676a636b09576413eb43c7308e3ec1a1a
38996 F20101206_AABZPJ sullivan_j_Page_004.jp2
c81297a3bd53b5625cb4829c39c765ba
11ea771a52edf1171114b658efdfd770a6d0a136
60552 F20101206_AABZOV sullivan_j_Page_125.jpg
0e8566e8ae3ca3caf9e0888a2427cbde
f6589b0255068c22819d9da225e2e995b447821f
119479 F20101206_AABYMH sullivan_j_Page_047.jp2
f8bfc4772f6e8f1929a1ce79353e0044
8263d33622de387966564011b0d3ca74822ebf22
16831 F20101206_AABYLT sullivan_j_Page_122.pro
866ec7f7dffd68c652ce04e3ba4036c3
94c58a7b10acf01fff59b73f1cc704d2c14ce5a1
F20101206_AABZPK sullivan_j_Page_008.jp2
a1f4804ee70225ca0cf7806cc300503c
0d03a9a88b8a0a8fb29711e4a3ad13dfca2376ce
74168 F20101206_AABZOW sullivan_j_Page_134.jpg
0f5f9ba73dad961aa0e57b4d59097834
92da46258448f24c878992f77a5547609c6e39a4
119499 F20101206_AABYMI sullivan_j_Page_041.jp2
1cfc0e307d20956ae48ad4d1c7c03943
eb841b78fc6cef473be50c8f196a662d1bb0f2d0
73330 F20101206_AABYLU sullivan_j_Page_037.jpg
4963ebf9b3abdf291fdd96a57014c3b0
52f2f846ef54b615ed15f629afcc6be274c66ef1
112707 F20101206_AABZQA sullivan_j_Page_053.jp2
613ebc847943257ebdc15793615571e9
cb66bc5f8ebab0d32159f779b32acdd227b3ac6f
1051923 F20101206_AABZPL sullivan_j_Page_009.jp2
7d6b75012f0bef102a7cc33555235fbc
1a2e932f0b7a07431c829dab1278f4d8719c13ee
27031 F20101206_AABZOX sullivan_j_Page_136.jpg
81be3df9a26082788964883ac871642e
1a3d587b99c1e3ff309a3d16f804831b6ac46a2e
F20101206_AABYMJ sullivan_j_Page_016.tif
7f3df748deb75bf342dd9948f3878d97
f06f447f93d19eb6d5b2a2a377497e6303dedb1b
610244 F20101206_AABYLV sullivan_j_Page_143.jp2
26c5394cd6645becb779d57cc7f04100
967a181d20d5696ce3399c8769a9974a90c4585d
103096 F20101206_AABZQB sullivan_j_Page_059.jp2
f8dadfbaf38cfdb129aea8f59fe21d33
00708a87632431a597822e202fa547fd1f3306f5
1051948 F20101206_AABZPM sullivan_j_Page_011.jp2
3dd6724ddd970bc58f9a69c67bf2a40c
7ea7a3273986e3326b91e13127f25a6d11a3c36e
32646 F20101206_AABZOY sullivan_j_Page_140.jpg
23b2bdae97bb740a912413098492bd24
fa7f0adee19d35f451229736e01397e3140d93b6
35484 F20101206_AABYMK sullivan_j_Page_100.pro
2b25539b05210888eb343c7df9e3c63a
495a0d336187ea3eec3dc8c8f183c94367727b52
81297 F20101206_AABYLW sullivan_j_Page_077.jp2
d8eb62e2b35c4be674db8ac84cd736ff
79f37aea921997eae258e208c2b00af2a79bf864
104558 F20101206_AABZQC sullivan_j_Page_063.jp2
ca6c3074da19c89233ee435ee35d62c3
8471a90a0105d69f959075e85b9120b8f5ce0396
114558 F20101206_AABZPN sullivan_j_Page_016.jp2
7395741c0d4b2ab024329970119a0f13
40285744a0c98d4fe835ef15297dcf5b74275f85
55680 F20101206_AABZOZ sullivan_j_Page_142.jpg
8827ee2764e10aa03503326941d26904
b124ee3910836167f4b072d01c9cbe0412eab720
48685 F20101206_AABYML sullivan_j_Page_138.jpg
2ed4a9bbf91347436f520a0c0fac58ba
a932f3c68b93df8153c79a18c1d07a74acd95225
12947 F20101206_AABYLX sullivan_j_Page_123.QC.jpg
b89e0ab26bff70ff4b7c796ecff7f1a0
856a6d07e56b1fe654dd11344a58f751a6d15020
79977 F20101206_AABYNA sullivan_j_Page_005.jpg
97ed6825f706b7020462a2b06fbde59b
dae1d3cc42a23bbe0872a1c58ec72f9379deefea
110674 F20101206_AABZPO sullivan_j_Page_017.jp2
0de9f5fcc6c77dcc3f522442aae4556b
01b2bdb57bf1b49e35cd4970cc9e8d2e95da1a99
16842 F20101206_AABYMM sullivan_j_Page_142.QC.jpg
9ffc205d099d87aebb675e2b7709e19a
355c3171488024f158f2f414246e3faec16f399d
832 F20101206_AABYLY sullivan_j_Page_121.txt
c76661b0fa3291efb4b4bcaaebe9a29c
afb0b7e14dd3a056eaeef2b32ee28921a60eca27
30009 F20101206_AABZQD sullivan_j_Page_067.jp2
a389a48db56ef061982a410703cbf949
509923e6fdbea29f6839a0f24396d58f9b7b63f3
90779 F20101206_AABZPP sullivan_j_Page_018.jp2
58e695f824f8315db04961b29c256fc9
bd089c6373ec98064574d9a678fcab35dea228bd
7617 F20101206_AABYMN sullivan_j_Page_154thm.jpg
1c92b8e47f89fb77432ae5b014f2a556
a290a1e988eb756820438c75939ac7b06ce2f880
54694 F20101206_AABYLZ sullivan_j_Page_087.pro
dc8667250dc5ad1fe0d801bf11cfe7d7
241beb77193caff1f679c02319c4df533b49158d
87465 F20101206_AABYNB sullivan_j_Page_163.jpg
854d205b841a2b33f2cf882cd46b98bb
e53df0c521489480850ef448c46782bc1f7e39e0
29030 F20101206_AABZQE sullivan_j_Page_068.jp2
c9c6c6c40f84f67ab7430db0c351f149
b9dd4d8e5cda5702908308ed8ee586a7454518ea
88423 F20101206_AABZPQ sullivan_j_Page_019.jp2
13238d11e79671c7b9bb8c5babe70ddf
4549cf6dac2c897d435d921e47ee5b9e84ef40df
54019 F20101206_AABYMO sullivan_j_Page_186.pro
54f195e13d7c33852a18717c9151cf75
8ed69fa455e62d3c83503d14e059e5e5901d12f0
F20101206_AABYNC sullivan_j_Page_162.tif
3f7dd99f0d29680dea39d4c13e53f100
a826016190beae73af5e2319952263a1b66c5072
138224 F20101206_AABZQF sullivan_j_Page_071.jp2
aee24ee7bbc785631939f5a0f6fd2c99
8646badf71b08719fbc6241eae15afcb7b5b64c6
27199 F20101206_AABZPR sullivan_j_Page_021.jp2
19cd1ca3d2cb8a2f02af3a63b13a3b74
a81335849a1efff02664b7a9c84befedeeaa8138
44564 F20101206_AABYMP sullivan_j_Page_096.pro
ee9af1085854214c82d508dc8cb781a0
d46fa11ce3d324cb6b0c1d66852b8611156cc439
6637 F20101206_AABYND sullivan_j_Page_035thm.jpg
57050c29a046711ed3488f10648cf0ec
103577229473d63afe1f5860faa6a362f350aebe
44245 F20101206_AABZQG sullivan_j_Page_073.jp2
95e56d77b68f5eb8ffdee6f8ebbe1074
966015a971c60f1c14c276fb5070bded4bdd80b5
119976 F20101206_AABZPS sullivan_j_Page_026.jp2
f32cdece8e5f5c5ee66ec5fa6a69a5aa
836f66ce5bef04ba9fe47ed49d28f5b039194e29
1141 F20101206_AABYMQ sullivan_j_Page_120.txt
372d9ed188b403f7a98baab6e98a55ce
992fc0d6f704c787ac1b8cfc8707a49210031f19
516058 F20101206_AABYNE sullivan_j_Page_140.jp2
19838a12191a8e40926d7bbb2b7aa961
f6939e4191c1a0ed3069935a276a6a2bda959311
71783 F20101206_AABZQH sullivan_j_Page_078.jp2
fda6302b02fb7967b201180c2710d3c3
5bd41f3f393fcec2594d43fe1f5a9c974eb9e7c0
111417 F20101206_AABZPT sullivan_j_Page_035.jp2
82f17a54d4738d02d8f6894b27c778fd
c4cfef8e08ea86c23f8cd2578d8dce0ffbbfa8c5
530512 F20101206_AABYMR sullivan_j_Page_137.jp2
618289615d3c1122d7a0f66f85b5ddca
1c66d4937000867f3da2d8483144835774b07aba
79954 F20101206_AABYNF sullivan_j_Page_079.jp2
3f09a98fffcb4509319097ce6237e3df
15df41f77cdf6d9af2d75ba3a402d5039bd36e39
7003 F20101206_AACAAA sullivan_j_Page_029thm.jpg
5f0f5fb528e2561a71c2159e62103952
34ce42a3823b1b6c0b5b97daf8f06187c026c1a4
107101 F20101206_AABZQI sullivan_j_Page_082.jp2
8e96044ad674530ab45bc0f4c8ef2428
77b8baec60152d43a9699791544afdcfca595bda
119337 F20101206_AABZPU sullivan_j_Page_036.jp2
e516cb5684d7cf5dcf49ab096fa9a864
0561e9bf8c607028df684462fdf0d1b62f1e4a68
F20101206_AABYMS sullivan_j_Page_074.tif
82be5809a586562b4d8c9d232c184a83
07a8593bc0721916c8ff585d37b96375fe961531
25030 F20101206_AABYNG sullivan_j_Page_001.jp2
46479b50e877d1c9aab177eb26e39977
d2b5943a77d8aef22165e13f09ddc4e48473cb7b
6688 F20101206_AACAAB sullivan_j_Page_024thm.jpg
6f0b2df2a377ffa2f69231804df264be
5071caf8758c83ebe5579bac88ec218fbf969cc9
108097 F20101206_AABZQJ sullivan_j_Page_091.jp2
40570496c45fa4bd90d9feb675c57bd8
ef50466489404929d6fc9eca8853374e6508a087
112097 F20101206_AABZPV sullivan_j_Page_037.jp2
b8f94aeb5b435f91a281745c62914b94
dd7afffc3547b9368757dac3012e6a3ac2e8793b
25522 F20101206_AABYMT sullivan_j_Page_171.QC.jpg
9cf60bed7886e0da46563a24ca97d6e1
2e866a66558341fc8ccc3244d7bb1ad7b4ad4e83
40430 F20101206_AABYNH sullivan_j_Page_018.pro
f16a9046067ee47ccbca949b918289ae
ae92564d297e5946a3b16319ab5cfa12520aa348
6521 F20101206_AACAAC sullivan_j_Page_092thm.jpg
da0c56e86f89837f885ad0347c11a985
371e83b58c6034267112d1ff7804449eecdbb5e9
121708 F20101206_AABZQK sullivan_j_Page_095.jp2
987c6a4c6c68d970de278613cbe1f595
6cff8501773d30d1fae6cb099fa92e90213fed6c
115654 F20101206_AABZPW sullivan_j_Page_038.jp2
1ac77c40468b5716eb92b7a69f4ffbe1
dfd1050558472fb61305d4058ce9e6e8b9d4b7c6
3207 F20101206_AABYMU sullivan_j_Page_172.txt
d634ca7a7b0b3f4ba8965587c22ba60f
fb7eeaf0593c734c538ed5eb331498d7d679f347
5385 F20101206_AABYNI sullivan_j_Page_147thm.jpg
37a34aa6fc43bcace060637cc4abd4d1
6d51bafe18fc31593c3b07c30e4dcfaa87b85ec7
F20101206_AACAAD sullivan_j_Page_106thm.jpg
a5f9b90f3f98912dd53951eec3f27f0c
025addeb0555ba0d9b844371f4cea600c815fb79
809820 F20101206_AABZRA sullivan_j_Page_141.jp2
c6159de8cbed279622bd36755b273518
e37a0040cffbf674d0cc19d91a8795e504fc631d
96147 F20101206_AABZQL sullivan_j_Page_096.jp2
ac88d60f0bd495e079eda3638b145ef6
7f5fc7a0bb1be807d02147700085d77e0aaa875d
109760 F20101206_AABZPX sullivan_j_Page_040.jp2
21e603c46219f0d523095134a5378648
b58abce532476b02d1513365c051a3786842dd59
39229 F20101206_AABYMV sullivan_j_Page_128.jpg
7bb9ef461164e22614cbe05faba0603a
7ffebab9d399561989e97c2078455be03a4b0bfa
17976 F20101206_AABYNJ sullivan_j_Page_116.QC.jpg
8fadedbe735c67f8f4a31fa164044f31
d1e824695ce6f2806a35d39637f9cc3d737e40ec
7938 F20101206_AACAAE sullivan_j_Page_176thm.jpg
7c1afd290cc31e0ccc668780028c598c
40a98079250a3281a840328a038fceacfec2a00d
105147 F20101206_AABZRB sullivan_j_Page_149.jp2
48cfeb9b4d782ad4cf900d082a4a72dd
fb75e656e284d5560b86e0a527fe40aa0b3cf937
107577 F20101206_AABZQM sullivan_j_Page_097.jp2
114813ed9c8a1969fa9fdb08b00d6426
ffe38570c32403affc8b3aa502d450ce97f2fc0d
114887 F20101206_AABZPY sullivan_j_Page_046.jp2
b601ab4bac7c59d4b3d1ab035e701902
72d8e2291fd67f21db6b1cb1df0d67b4366db11a
5629 F20101206_AABYMW sullivan_j_Page_103.pro
2ff2a8b53df7bdffc4acbd5e8b19e8d1
55b4bc700b0fbb75222fba60362b9c369b05daff
3255 F20101206_AABYNK sullivan_j_Page_153.txt
4400945d0b2bb06d56acec842eddc292
530430ba026aa7e6518b5eb8b7febacc53e9aab3
2924 F20101206_AACAAF sullivan_j_Page_021thm.jpg
022e06a757ec76e1f43c4e25c3e3a081
0adefb9eb68ca5e4bf4f519f9ce377ff5928ff52
9468 F20101206_AABZRC sullivan_j_Page_150.jp2
cd740749eb04cacc236c41136c09c06c
7add0ba1d5e7391eef3da705a98c00c3e3bc7303
124996 F20101206_AABZQN sullivan_j_Page_098.jp2
d81d3cf4d8eeba7401cdb61983d923c2
81dfc1ca8b130e9a09c015a601a626b98e4c0eeb
113336 F20101206_AABZPZ sullivan_j_Page_048.jp2
aac0f041e2af8e01120d3d0264de2955
1523dfacd3c09b1410e27e9d03a03594207b6452
910 F20101206_AABYMX sullivan_j_Page_002.pro
ba1bb1d8bb4f0f98931a48d4b3b6d3cd
4ee89c39b286c9cba37c0174465719c1338ba975
3316 F20101206_AABYOA sullivan_j_Page_080thm.jpg
a58ac3589c1e0a33c3491c3526d2dc2c
2c7185455da3d4b0e1a00e7677ca7cbe4097bb92
3590 F20101206_AABYNL sullivan_j_Page_156.txt
4b20d5cc204d49193465a93a16b58854
6d784e3a93427d215839dc0da4f521b099ae494f
7758 F20101206_AACAAG sullivan_j_Page_173thm.jpg
d9ce40c4e38cdec3839121576a236046
6c52b5818deb84097a217f86c823294d4fe018e1
163911 F20101206_AABZRD sullivan_j_Page_153.jp2
80991d71bb695e4d5263ac0e89866f8e
12cb5dc5239c5247a7e6a4a7f6b48f6a921bdee9
607700 F20101206_AABZQO sullivan_j_Page_101.jp2
97465e9b6a49d25ec324962f2719316b
90cbc87e987e57709b326716e124aba474cd2eb9
92682 F20101206_AABYMY sullivan_j_Page_156.pro
0633a3388135ec0a7d9e14391b5ac2ec
29959d55e056868bddad627644c062b1df8fdccd
2004 F20101206_AABYOB sullivan_j_Page_144.txt
caa68ea90d8adaebb35922524aa10983
2b816ec3f5d09b28e71786a618e8b368691eb0c0
49400 F20101206_AABYNM sullivan_j_Page_133.pro
97b71b7dd1797ca2ee0f63478120b1da
58f8aa1250f0ce956506902857f8342d4ae0e06d
22404 F20101206_AACAAH sullivan_j_Page_015.QC.jpg
8b1d20d1963e348a2bb739bddaed311d
0d6b9700e62eaf11fcae6096c5fb8d628a848730
73954 F20101206_AABZQP sullivan_j_Page_106.jp2
522a8e8a7684e7d5e62ddc6e8611f795
8cc48ddff93676a41e969b6140bb47a3e4b77b5f
12357 F20101206_AABYMZ sullivan_j_Page_183.QC.jpg
35f2d3dc29a1789108196d77ab2dddcd
1e6f4efa77b3e4dc156461ca1ad688057fcbd41f
2861 F20101206_AABYNN sullivan_j_Page_108thm.jpg
f855bdf545ebe575298c06766a86b601
bce7e748b6184bdb2b1093eb0a5cd9cfe65cbe05
19621 F20101206_AACAAI sullivan_j_Page_147.QC.jpg
6cfead47886bd04026a58a2b66312b7f
3fa9a6199192b9c224beae0789603631f7174b1f
167966 F20101206_AABZRE sullivan_j_Page_159.jp2
715b655caac17aa1c5c32685df003051
26d726d5b5712f7b015eaeb43dc65267f3c99af0
58861 F20101206_AABZQQ sullivan_j_Page_107.jp2
46617b4e27393d7789a79804997ebbab
438810f6e2e0388c22a69dc243a840fe515181f5
F20101206_AABYOC sullivan_j_Page_177.tif
ba9d18d4d6c92c2aed7b9c24cd4ab08a
e6878e6160e6bef5481e5a868c72d2f3d894808f
32186 F20101206_AABYNO sullivan_j_Page_122.jpg
fb2fd39e1ad1ac6d1880bcf420580793
f73e92e15b22b8b6b0e99d3772b38002affe29a5
8535 F20101206_AACAAJ sullivan_j_Page_108.QC.jpg
baf0078f2d3ec1fcc65123c69d5bf9dc
c98b1e7658ff5a2f049f9162613e00aa1adde5bb
151134 F20101206_AABZRF sullivan_j_Page_162.jp2
faf6349a0ae4ce1bf9373cc13da13db3
e9dcd3f34ec5550d50a27e7d25649beb71b152ce
105113 F20101206_AABZQR sullivan_j_Page_109.jp2
15f8e2e9eef194a4c5ece2d4601a69c8
76e0adccd7facd7f96dd31677b0d60ab9cb880ae
5684 F20101206_AABYOD sullivan_j_Page_018thm.jpg
e352263a96a895f832c27d34d9ddd15e
08311c3eb54d5e5f3fea714674a85781f8c1b87d
10582 F20101206_AABYNP sullivan_j_Page_140.QC.jpg
98b1760dc867b8e00546a04294e1aa0e
77e81350d8a4f951ab3bb843fb4e3f05b4a1020f
25984 F20101206_AACAAK sullivan_j_Page_023.QC.jpg
be67643dddf1105e16f458a76f52c81d
99c4f0af80f30dc273bb2a8ddc62365e222e7f1f
172368 F20101206_AABZRG sullivan_j_Page_173.jp2
2ecb2d735153b3f47bec4cb63ea56692
50ef00747e218c629372ea58f3595f1e40cce967
405118 F20101206_AABZQS sullivan_j_Page_118.jp2
c236a5ca295e6240dfdc0939ead70b5d
8cf5d5a2130ca6f5c904ef834c45234498c87811
74069 F20101206_AABYOE sullivan_j_Page_053.jpg
27ecbe7eb07aad50b5350786b268922b
edcaa6ab72ccd35d48994ef4f8cd2c65accfee61
48769 F20101206_AABYNQ sullivan_j_Page_101.jpg
d379fa3b84a0bc587d9a2b36e08d54bd
181c75a0590aa097a752bb629f6b216c890280d4
23620 F20101206_AACAAL sullivan_j_Page_109.QC.jpg
919d4ab032f8da10c93c29b089a8f3fb
4ed1cc71190add46a5274668f9a1404a85c32773
180587 F20101206_AABZRH sullivan_j_Page_176.jp2
be998c51aac0bdceb1e9c5b8d3e4a675
4633a217b2fe6a006e8e7b95992acdab0e9293be
375472 F20101206_AABZQT sullivan_j_Page_121.jp2
47a8d1720f506c76537819028b4113bc
e772b22a98f21f4ce6907a4eec31619cc59845b7
105586 F20101206_AABYOF sullivan_j_Page_111.jp2
9807ee56b109d5a82bcc0f30809107a9
5cc3e34730a308a1e9619d41d11c6e0e036f793c
110930 F20101206_AABYNR sullivan_j_Page_178.jpg
6ca66ffda597f001b36baf86a81a1b07
afd5d667de006339e73dd4e5fdf59160f0b8f830
26515 F20101206_AACABA sullivan_j_Page_166.QC.jpg
fb98c96c493f337ec4a9580317e04348
25af7db4b4a38096e2fd01ebbb761b17f09a8958
24545 F20101206_AACAAM sullivan_j_Page_151.QC.jpg
4f476736c5e2f55989affce6ba31dcbd
e5c35d37d795485761b2dd6c8d34b40a17b17dfe
152938 F20101206_AABZRI sullivan_j_Page_181.jp2
9e3a7590030bc02708dfa932017f43f5
850ff3434d9ac4fcc2afa5a8cbc888d17ffc10ea
605217 F20101206_AABZQU sullivan_j_Page_127.jp2
9a6040119bc8228d3f8ca10eb8503ebe
68f178789e41b6e0776d0f07a5061d38b1f957c4
F20101206_AABYOG sullivan_j_Page_148.tif
81337688b37de1a9c38769d90e3daf4e
c5bdf63459bcc9b34975f0cc8dd7bb2e722f1ce4
50546 F20101206_AABYNS sullivan_j_Page_037.pro
dc70a09d9f960d57c0b5b8bae9f255d9
e565cdaca4c1f0edd8557f7afb4be19e548e4a65
7038 F20101206_AACABB sullivan_j_Page_130.QC.jpg
94005226d9e8757d2b829686450e360d
473d959ca8ca55cdef93bf0be57e93b63c699e74
110807 F20101206_AABZRJ sullivan_j_Page_182.jp2
ee07d01f646868a6dad5d15b62a4a530
a035bb163d5cfcec75ead66bc33c53381079dd95
22297 F20101206_AABZQV sullivan_j_Page_130.jp2
28b8ace13458d5acc137bd914abc46d1
67f1c02f8d89665b92ae9f2b0c62ae7a156b409f
2177 F20101206_AABYOH sullivan_j_Page_023.txt
47a358c4a6e0507c1c874938a4dcb8d2
af678a238c80aaf7d8e914c29b94314e945f3250
115823 F20101206_AABYNT sullivan_j_Page_024.jp2
7694dc9fa726b68140ca54f8481dafe5
565ee5f392b04f3c193815e0ae450119a47a5d27
24446 F20101206_AACABC sullivan_j_Page_048.QC.jpg
bb365ec20ed11c0534382a0cc93cef3a
db6e6e3a26d93ca920daaa65ac82b49acb94378d
4752 F20101206_AACAAN sullivan_j_Page_124thm.jpg
60c479c3c0d0540e7ed09914b1e8f46f
54f4055cb118a1783f4101e84ddaf71557e11d5f
49172 F20101206_AABZRK sullivan_j_Page_183.jp2
0f5cebcb6d52b93828ef165df940546b
b4f981a473f93b2f3243920fb88f578f9859c2d9
104482 F20101206_AABZQW sullivan_j_Page_131.jp2
4a53ecf656fc5a8882c6835ac02ef9b0
1e9ec36ecc81a65721fc4012e5b3d7cbbc0abaed
F20101206_AABYOI sullivan_j_Page_137.tif
f8403c09755cc9e6ea0774f71e3a0ab3
08cc10a9ae5b0bc60db37cfcfed89961961f9d44
15479 F20101206_AABYNU sullivan_j_Page_138.QC.jpg
ad89d9b8f741a1ef5e121cae5308da89
0fb8e88751aced283452211cad1cac2d3ab7afaa
21796 F20101206_AACABD sullivan_j_Page_059.QC.jpg
68ddbac98229163e97d8ae13169de316
02836f89960db88a91f7bfe0d97ee2b853a4fff4
22799 F20101206_AACAAO sullivan_j_Page_045.QC.jpg
b15c1ebecebcef2e781dcf59f34c0c6d
dd5dd014159a46abcc819411c17082ac74494f5f
F20101206_AABZSA sullivan_j_Page_040.tif
330f6c8a95d82e7a794ac66399395a45
22f50f52e9f0cc060d0bf42942489d6dab20284e
119377 F20101206_AABZRL sullivan_j_Page_188.jp2
1cc8cb2b6db08dcec9556e71390dbd64
d06ae1f9f0e72599d72ef9ae5dcb275aa08b4d47
108940 F20101206_AABZQX sullivan_j_Page_133.jp2
e269072f1626a6959aba9f5838ff2a94
71a2ce15121e59dcc063f444524cedc8e725986c
7319 F20101206_AABYOJ sullivan_j_Page_185thm.jpg
c9198237f3b73417f18a18913fbf002f
19c57fc05e83a778d1ee9dc59c9aadb62f5a8c9e
98405 F20101206_AABYNV sullivan_j_Page_152.jpg
1108e641d25b145aeb329266f5408b14
9afed93c697c08fcc9c7ad4e34f52674608c9907
6935 F20101206_AACABE sullivan_j_Page_027thm.jpg
866cd428ca7901c22af2169114a51c3e
de2c5158c09d8019aaf2ea7715b48c968bc72038
6976 F20101206_AACAAP sullivan_j_Page_050thm.jpg
8f4ee9abecbb6263a374a272347cb651
9c13c9da2bd3365491c47c632092ca37f52b7849
F20101206_AABZSB sullivan_j_Page_042.tif
f97b91b106aee12e8ef8874753011451
3ace1fe7081b3f292b01285917a4d1a4aa231906
F20101206_AABZRM sullivan_j_Page_002.tif
ebb81cf9dc6442fb58df30453745384a
481eccd3dde3971c86d977b4797d24941cccaaae
36083 F20101206_AABZQY sullivan_j_Page_136.jp2
105325d1cc5b5de3aca55dfdf6e97ed1
5e4c7277395492de058c6aa553ed094bd02c7b42
71119 F20101206_AABYOK sullivan_j_Page_097.jpg
15a6ca895137901da074bd4708b61288
8ef300accb92a0f5c8b4872c4b5f3f1290105d60
13823 F20101206_AABYNW sullivan_j_Page_141.QC.jpg
15da8a550e116a2035781939f6ff4a46
44c6132fb9f36a31eacb8059ee060fe731b7dbe7
7762 F20101206_AACABF sullivan_j_Page_164thm.jpg
1fd2008078a9b296694d66167a2e43bb
dd933c84f0e10804125b9c127401159fcd4a933d
4568 F20101206_AACAAQ sullivan_j_Page_126thm.jpg
639c5d52267c442b645e595ccdc6d044
f1047b07362dcb6aa4ac6715acdb51275ca9fde8
F20101206_AABZSC sullivan_j_Page_047.tif
a60742da6db4b9537c0a4000bbd825e0
be666ea48a0c70452a49474aff794b5bfd3a3b48
F20101206_AABZRN sullivan_j_Page_003.tif
b61d30d8b089783efe7f5ed5b6c171de
cb3c43598fe061aa2418d97cb3744b1131ee7079
473046 F20101206_AABZQZ sullivan_j_Page_138.jp2
f8886aa0bb991c904e50072c6129cc34
1d5d8413abce473ac5b8583154aec1c9520b58b0
92429 F20101206_AABYPA sullivan_j_Page_148.jp2
398aea2632eb0cb65cae23e5a512db06
03ef5897448263e40d9cb5c161d14421f2b69adf
7124 F20101206_AABYOL sullivan_j_Page_113thm.jpg
e8f45b6ca93d7b205bc8ea029cfdd92d
c8a4a48ac8cbcb3b0d0f9dda1fad325f386da8a6
32580 F20101206_AABYNX sullivan_j_Page_074.pro
a75ed9524ef7f206e1bd16ee5de34c07
8e751f471d175178d78cea9a0fabdeaf51184e17
6470 F20101206_AACABG sullivan_j_Page_025thm.jpg
dab069b24f002058d2b6691b96ef7bef
fb297245ce5219f4514af2281424a76de943f4de
6801 F20101206_AACAAR sullivan_j_Page_030thm.jpg
713d4e1022f25f844039e728636cb584
456a2ab36c7bec67a06470ed13e9c6f5b988cd10
F20101206_AABZSD sullivan_j_Page_050.tif
9a186a52de6005ef83f86ae12bea611b
3fa421c5a619102b92526c017c04f9e38db6865f
F20101206_AABZRO sullivan_j_Page_004.tif
cb67734a3c942a5aec52134b995dd10b
0258ee36b7f5ac9251ead38f3f827323032db79b
76841 F20101206_AABYPB sullivan_j_Page_112.jpg
679756d829d5d5978c4289a0167249a0
3034424693733fea7259be6c28bbf74b4340fc97
393192 F20101206_AABYOM sullivan_j_Page_117.jp2
f2a4f2ac4b775814202a739814cd3eef
f50a5db36784ac8f85af3f9182f46d9f6a425ef9
1560 F20101206_AABYNY sullivan_j_Page_150thm.jpg
6559245b570a369b0241d060582bd3e5
ceabe5edb6cfa45d9fdd9189ff9293bcb1ee5690
13236 F20101206_AACABH sullivan_j_Page_117.QC.jpg
9f837642f30e2afb16dfd42d863a0050
b5a1930c0dd524a3fdb8ca616c548bbe0860df54
7834 F20101206_AACAAS sullivan_j_Page_177thm.jpg
d5fefcb66f236ac63d13de6bf664df3a
26d441a73b16c005d3183762c0fde6f30bd7eda4
F20101206_AABZSE sullivan_j_Page_051.tif
3773d568ef1945aa407084d7413b1141
3a4a486243422b3c94b04d41b03a6181da30c4bb
F20101206_AABZRP sullivan_j_Page_006.tif
88239a46b588eed47c9926f665f5eaab
b813f65021c5dd8e0009b9982ad24baa1204d27a
F20101206_AABYPC sullivan_j_Page_095.tif
81b166bf8da6a41d9e4bd3cac6373fdd
feff0d18733fb77927ba3cb9666b724a0b64778c
72606 F20101206_AABYON sullivan_j_Page_035.jpg
2f0aba798e4f84b5ed5b385b3dc3e7a6
2ec4817854d30a401d6eec9ce4cecde8a29379de
6645 F20101206_AABYNZ sullivan_j_Page_042thm.jpg
0fd90fe6f069381527c19af44ca4a155
e976f9771d6a3b652850f72a2c2937a0424f4ccb
F20101206_AACABI sullivan_j_Page_082.QC.jpg
608e3d27c6442d305ef44c9c587babc6
2b7fff713fe114f9d2436ae0ed4d63c7d2626a18
7453 F20101206_AACAAT sullivan_j_Page_172thm.jpg
e94e1d3dbdd27b7fbe56356fc9a3c4f1
6fac3a7dda1063a92855f1f79e1c2fd5853f8b6a
F20101206_AABZRQ sullivan_j_Page_008.tif
0ef95d15e0a4710beaec44500ccdf06f
34d88ae591c9210856a4358893bb47a686fc6269
107774 F20101206_AABYOO sullivan_j_Page_061.jp2
6bef35c2dff9775926f13993ac56498e
48e8121f777b32e2c1abe3b264535609c6d66dc1
24259 F20101206_AACABJ sullivan_j_Page_051.QC.jpg
b83a767dd6accde1daa0ddab21675c94
59483dd221a85f30640e67b2386467cb4ffbbd94
7079 F20101206_AACAAU sullivan_j_Page_112thm.jpg
d7eb75998d67e94234cab75b7f3c93c4
df60fe1db16e2e7a081fe5f038bb25a3eb67e451
F20101206_AABZSF sullivan_j_Page_052.tif
e31c330dbaf24621483e1bde2fc1d4e9
99bb9b5fd7b4d0e3f6ee88460ea883ec69278542
F20101206_AABZRR sullivan_j_Page_011.tif
6aa3b8c43d0232a7779721b5b091ad2f
2c4d537ee48d95b1d2b8b5595a5854e32a42a9df
17101 F20101206_AABYPD sullivan_j_Page_127.QC.jpg
a62cb7ff3bdc166e8281aa2416431a86
1cf6f064e35c3e6496090f3d0743f2476ee5535d
18701 F20101206_AABYOP sullivan_j_Page_100.QC.jpg
7395134306fcf999a98da9614b6679ca
a9b68a1c3f75da314c864ce690fe623d575b4829
11450 F20101206_AACABK sullivan_j_Page_073.QC.jpg
d993dfa34730fdd47ca70818017a10f6
9a834c5c58e474f42ccbd39952cb9bf992a0ac85
6522 F20101206_AACAAV sullivan_j_Page_081thm.jpg
832ada99c98c47f70f33b98f079cf757
705d60b82045632490d689728fcd3f75d038427b
F20101206_AABZSG sullivan_j_Page_054.tif
3c0bcbb5d293e98506b00bf9cc11307e
ad25239b2a09e5761acd8d9ac11a0d1df10c18f5
F20101206_AABZRS sullivan_j_Page_012.tif
d490db334b17c4418003fea5247bb47a
9ed67e4deab06e3929dc24970e40a889f0e74e5d
2505 F20101206_AABYPE sullivan_j_Page_098.txt
fe47ed71db0b193197a882be9338b5e8
495fa5bdd00bffe77e949eceff8355fcd3b5703b
54065 F20101206_AABYOQ sullivan_j_Page_050.pro
2e5306cbe468c10fbffedcdd66960761
667928d2dedeb2f93b8c1b4fb2c0c38d0a237dd1
13024 F20101206_AACABL sullivan_j_Page_119.QC.jpg
4ea9b0fdc022b7b3e637929deb194f07
e46d10722802abb2acc6ac561bb5357581a8ad91
20876 F20101206_AACAAW sullivan_j_Page_005.QC.jpg
3bab735b207072ae00f79fcb16ea4382
4dd60348183d7fab56e59f2cb1a0bbdda27df3a3
F20101206_AABZSH sullivan_j_Page_055.tif
8d4f5b46ff20d669e391fb234cfe628c
a960973668ee5a67614a07fa2e6fc2c5732cf7a3
F20101206_AABZRT sullivan_j_Page_015.tif
f41f674467f6f5c9eee063edec0cee9b
c9e0724fc7fa5131f7b807ff1275db195a015efa
6892 F20101206_AABYPF sullivan_j_Page_161thm.jpg
264fa47ae4c7237546e03ea2f7640205
91dfe2428eb2aa5e76ddab15c434a52013fda5d4
74192 F20101206_AABYOR sullivan_j_Page_090.jpg
490c5e78bea9976c524977b5a79f6844
ceeb90f42b5b270fa383fac47a584eaf71f08964
28843 F20101206_AACACA sullivan_j_Page_169.QC.jpg
89eec36c8e7f9bf307d8032cccb15e02
7e1c3a429f2b828c3d38f3059e5c44c217ebd7b7
4670 F20101206_AACABM sullivan_j_Page_009thm.jpg
7e2484961cdd9dc96d8dc7786e4f4861
01d8fe746b2cd44f1524fa62e546d71d84ea1264
6221 F20101206_AACAAX sullivan_j_Page_060thm.jpg
4ce5352ab961d0c10c6bc185cf2fb4a1
018d289dd081392686500ba88bb38f2f54126390
F20101206_AABZSI sullivan_j_Page_061.tif
9b6c2c7338c2648d0b474b7faa1a4748
988d01a07cd1726ebf46ccb60fa96a757c0efac0
F20101206_AABZRU sullivan_j_Page_019.tif
bf44541c4390a1587ed7775430096b07
ecd8aceff4375f27a742dae7517fa77ebbf9d194
529 F20101206_AABYPG sullivan_j_Page_021.txt
28955d83706edc5f98df1a540a298f10
79cdd4f1520af8d4060f048e6fdbfdf7746568c0
F20101206_AABYOS sullivan_j_Page_187.tif
afd5a362b806af8de6dd1004dd5853d4
0c4fe47da8eed570e3c3ee6085600c1c474cc0b2
5022 F20101206_AACACB sullivan_j_Page_142thm.jpg
1ee3e672c7a6e2c6d68c6300203890af
ed11f4448f0440cc51cefa41a19d039b2404c1de
25300 F20101206_AACABN sullivan_j_Page_036.QC.jpg
0ebd49dc2e6c305b7d3dfa441debc5b4
e5bae44ac0342e896bdfe4e455f045e72a83ef5a
7093 F20101206_AACAAY sullivan_j_Page_158thm.jpg
3f8dee1dee3082c7f89979ef24716c9e
c7a275e2fb265df1609e8db813ffbb9964451f7c
F20101206_AABZSJ sullivan_j_Page_072.tif
a34dd27c2c3f38a801def8527bc6d8d8
5dee1a827424f4b3291c2548fb5b0117e4fd5f37
F20101206_AABZRV sullivan_j_Page_022.tif
46d9e81d5cf0af69ab7b49cd8c33fe67
f8dc4ac616f37ae6dcc916e4642ee07a569b369d
122956 F20101206_AABYPH sullivan_j_Page_164.jpg
a8b8b20e8f5c6ba1707aa69273debab6
e67e8169ce126fdf9022079d04fe1fa23e8a9776
47170 F20101206_AABYOT sullivan_j_Page_060.pro
84a71aa775335ff647fcff908e11a612
24c4afee8a0de1a63c84c739b60511a83ce375d4
6914 F20101206_AACACC sullivan_j_Page_166thm.jpg
91c8e4d08205d6c7f87be7d8d0dbae0f
7a717606ddf2f4a09ccde630c587043035ca4bec
4290 F20101206_AACAAZ sullivan_j_Page_104thm.jpg
8c555c61a1418c1580276a4c53255f88
4a6032f6c6e13e5f678f0b29f35d1dd066ff12e3
F20101206_AABZSK sullivan_j_Page_075.tif
9f6fc603a96bee1e5cd7714a50c75817
b57507a14505151563e57932d2ba7c17932d598f
F20101206_AABZRW sullivan_j_Page_024.tif
56673832e601723d0c87ae8d021c0b7f
ed438d20054b9f88400a760e473c3a800361ef45
F20101206_AABYPI sullivan_j_Page_149.tif
2c14088736032d5990e5e9b63af34309
baad2e92c3adac1a91f927aa3a7f8f7efc643170
6536 F20101206_AABYOU sullivan_j_Page_093thm.jpg
0c28bc5d063378ca7f10cb1cfae986b8
45f84d560278773d133707efa01d5d827f53983b
11786 F20101206_AACACD sullivan_j_Page_013.QC.jpg
e034d5d5053df7f77da2765e783c15a0
ca605ac29896eeecd0cdecb9ede5b364b513371c
22826 F20101206_AACABO sullivan_j_Page_010.QC.jpg
bde809b05ce7438753b3fc9fdb163a8a
407698bfb4dd521eb75e2d6371bc898f4a508968
F20101206_AABZTA sullivan_j_Page_119.tif
53fa6821382cfe900aef9bb942857c22
7ff23b12e030d5ad0dca4784827f98579d52454e
F20101206_AABZSL sullivan_j_Page_076.tif
a5dc8abcca9918f1553abb076e5841fe
5d89eb0bd0b77595395c82139d528d2fae8e769a
F20101206_AABZRX sullivan_j_Page_025.tif
2d31edfa1adde954449a8590231226f5
e8f6571451aeeea93b4852366521cf610bc0d4bb
6172 F20101206_AABYPJ sullivan_j_Page_145thm.jpg
35b28e620fbbecc3ac4210d2f5a2b8a1
f439ccec93150855d310642eaffe7fec3719fe3a
543 F20101206_AABYOV sullivan_j_Page_076.txt
2bdc56297585999c9bf42f389cefb535
cd58f55405e10352a521fbcd21eb75159d4e588a
3683 F20101206_AACACE sullivan_j_Page_183thm.jpg
95fe742d54e46531ed1488d83fbe5027
739b8b0279ee851af66acf0741ddc1164bb162c4
6485 F20101206_AACABP sullivan_j_Page_061thm.jpg
1df23768dc735bbd4ab59b757fe10bf5
55e017b789ba9fad3620323348adf71db4adbda7
F20101206_AABZTB sullivan_j_Page_128.tif
3db0b084a557eb09cd2290b5bf7bcd4c
1a69b5b0a289d09fb0a8a44755f1635e143cd91f
F20101206_AABZSM sullivan_j_Page_077.tif
e8461b096b424e72593ab6e10f3e7905
4da99563a860af28a443cf7fe737ae3e93e8f425
F20101206_AABZRY sullivan_j_Page_033.tif
add080dbfe80e75fa6702514eb6ce7bb
8339f5a5c854e2239a2f7a31ea100671c3475f65
3122 F20101206_AABYPK sullivan_j_Page_178.txt
18ae7fa1940943bac2424b1ffcf4750c
da13e26033e7872baaa076e16f9c25aa2365e851
2020 F20101206_AABYOW sullivan_j_Page_048.txt
3764f916a747839ebe8c60fd33729282
3098b710dad1b245d3e1fa14c58047c1f246ea88
7445 F20101206_AACACF sullivan_j_Page_162thm.jpg
de87ca3e713ec554557c4c9b68acab81
f4f45a61d0549c7537e5fafbde29e31aa017072c
22630 F20101206_AACABQ sullivan_j_Page_133.QC.jpg
f3a4bad8adbfa66b12ed417b1521eff7
a2e7a06e6d5490c311263a30a0ea1d33fce2252b
F20101206_AABZTC sullivan_j_Page_135.tif
62b6876ffb072c16ee1e36a3e1ac927f
33418cfc4194767ad12ec21d71c7d7988e355975
F20101206_AABZSN sullivan_j_Page_082.tif
ed17dbcc08f55da865dfed7931184a90
7ab0332fbbfc444d0fff8a50e20266a2d993044d
F20101206_AABZRZ sullivan_j_Page_036.tif
ee0ad3801bee8886ba0c9d653ecdf33f
a042b857ce740231c539d3c490af4777d305d0c6
6425 F20101206_AABYOX sullivan_j_Page_058thm.jpg
29cb242d73ca1641049e73ff0d77417d
f944a0ef51de5dafdb174410cf01d809af3e955b
71364 F20101206_AABYQA sullivan_j_Page_133.jpg
01d3082dda6c3e5a998d84c1d0e9fae9
ebf841e640eb2f69cff33c6ed5f86c8edd00fdc9
17075 F20101206_AABYPL sullivan_j_Page_074.QC.jpg
66de4b72e213a024e0c021b63858673f
7b6eb1956dc2e42a30ccbd7e1dcfe0c4ba96849b
F20101206_AACACG sullivan_j_Page_116thm.jpg
82e8c65e552410b5e0e76dd926360fbb
1b432729d21921bd4496b1c8d372b4927809e6f8
7837 F20101206_AACABR sullivan_j_Page_067.QC.jpg
2eb5a7189047473873486e5863b6ab12
299eadc8cccd83f56488d3c503d0833dbeca5363
F20101206_AABZTD sullivan_j_Page_138.tif
9875e8a3f06914b524ac9094278e09c5
cad78922245b8cc4a1229ab02d7c6537033c98ff
F20101206_AABZSO sullivan_j_Page_085.tif
4a9ce4dcd7b238677031b539a0ea6254
a68d12c330707cfbd9bc601db46ccfb3d6aedfda
75199 F20101206_AABYOY sullivan_j_Page_034.jpg
a110280fe60a744ff590ec4f39359e83
c37d482f50f6c804a81792dd6b627594ad946e19
116998 F20101206_AABYQB sullivan_j_Page_050.jp2
3c4b939f056c52f860242226979ad4eb
3ea4491e8438ebf22005d6fb83d6c9011f15e04a
111899 F20101206_AABYPM sullivan_j_Page_099.jp2
ede6a552c8ac055d96c3b2d3ca1352f7
eb6c2c1652aa1bf19429165ae7ad6c3535bb71d3
15095 F20101206_AACACH sullivan_j_Page_078.QC.jpg
b90f9da8903797aa0f7a10a373999a22
fc3068abe770b63467c4d4021eb5194950a8b71d
3928 F20101206_AACABS sullivan_j_Page_120thm.jpg
390b37b75ad2f8423188400e6ae7b4c2
c6138d3704563bb0d7a05cf2ff0af19b796268f5
F20101206_AABZTE sullivan_j_Page_141.tif
661a6083e14f66f8183eb5d90b8daf3a
e8881f72277ca47d95fa968f1a4cf1c2d2555025
F20101206_AABZSP sullivan_j_Page_088.tif
fb9c7a5a27d6bd72875e9607650989c8
f474a3b16613b33c8d84641f89d0ae706e823caf
10657 F20101206_AABYOZ sullivan_j_Page_115.pro
3409e896298f2bcab16f4f69e997e682
27567ef68a85469d27156cd11adaf1dbdf43a9a3
53399 F20101206_AABYQC sullivan_j_Page_032.pro
67656c457a33bb50ab29991bfdc54b5a
636c10a5529625e037a5106f944e0970374c7b36
F20101206_AABYPN sullivan_j_Page_069.tif
0839b682c6540447a3783f8b0e002cbe
f88974a220310ec8ac0901aa27ad61759c5f6d82
24987 F20101206_AACACI sullivan_j_Page_085.QC.jpg
a6c5a7f976c1d51a1398d59547685a56
a2b8ee086c6e7af34ba1bf69f0c99b469c23de8f
26053 F20101206_AACABT sullivan_j_Page_026.QC.jpg
882963210f4290bd99b4176e59c88d1a
684e939c5177b2806eee1810ef3526680e3b9d6e
F20101206_AABZTF sullivan_j_Page_142.tif
4a387826fa140fbbd27720880cbc1af3
bdf310cf5125c55fcb013f5b46cbb760242b4cd7
F20101206_AABZSQ sullivan_j_Page_089.tif
18029ab50b3896f408b579b6f3b73a77
e934afb8ddcd7a3bb8941ebc44031e27f3ad5a05
F20101206_AABYQD sullivan_j_Page_087.tif
fb118e3ead171e917a92bf0bbdf7304b
36f786d019543e5b60008eb37830b8a21270220e
65942 F20101206_AABYPO sullivan_j_Page_060.jpg
891f7acc12f72e1d8343068ac6933ac8
1ea895545b0ce2c2373628b0c4e82c08847d5132
3503 F20101206_AACACJ sullivan_j_Page_140thm.jpg
1ab6d9f5f26718e294f64313d84b32cf
5988ef63cd974123744a9667b7c1faeb50630dfc
2961 F20101206_AACABU sullivan_j_Page_068thm.jpg
5898b3cb8fe47a86ca2d476e840dce71
4f2a5737ecf8819846ce02b25b9516308d1b09ba
F20101206_AABZSR sullivan_j_Page_094.tif
f1827731f89d9e3f8b9609e0004166c7
4fe40c95062942ea8ab03215a49db28294d39e4b
38355 F20101206_AABYPP sullivan_j_Page_121.jpg
58fc6c0ffa20f6dbb5febe84ee8c7fcb
c6f18f0c741e1d4fc3e3bbf97ea8bb1348e9bb07
F20101206_AACACK sullivan_j_Page_041thm.jpg
af22d10ce977d1c4e504d38d4f61e154
98cad9f8f95b685f013189e8fa5f5d63f874bd8c
F20101206_AACABV sullivan_j_Page_033thm.jpg
c90500875b1ed869914cb0fc896c07e6
bc9a97d41318e4aacd099aa277262294355bc6ad
F20101206_AABZTG sullivan_j_Page_144.tif
aef2592b4e32b0c9b99755b0949c93ca
d948123f5fce35cb6c6bd80aab168ceb97efdaba
F20101206_AABZSS sullivan_j_Page_097.tif
a6d0fb3bd2bfeccef520e855cccc1558
e1193e1c16693c9866d5b93eae25ac94f06729fa
6901 F20101206_AABYQE sullivan_j_Page_090thm.jpg
06facf172892506016543955d770ff87
3b6961a120342c756878350997e4c61c8b57111c
76209 F20101206_AABYPQ sullivan_j_Page_016.jpg
20e6d8ac1e9b374a46820bae0a2194bc
5f9a0ab6606bd0c57e5e1106ec0236c409e2dfe7
282679 F20101206_AACACL UFE0021378_00001.xml
c8d388a977076e57664cd6acebf3d1aa
2b96dd4ecaad52ea048d07765e54575221455ecb
24135 F20101206_AACABW sullivan_j_Page_031.QC.jpg
6810ac602748ded30bdbf2b6b392ab9a
3b4e766cad74efdf9a4308413e4b25f2a1ed8261
F20101206_AABZTH sullivan_j_Page_146.tif
e99c9f31f273c850829998359a10411c
b6e01cde6aca06899c6e7de360174fb14e4ab1b2
F20101206_AABZST sullivan_j_Page_099.tif
a81fbcaef24e6aa4c7fca2e72c84067d
debf9832bb2ae21234830010e5df6acc6d03764e
5700 F20101206_AABYQF sullivan_j_Page_010thm.jpg
5542623925f076403f663f9cef225984
8b3a60daf92d1dceb800c5392ba3f8e3f499cf0f
1441551 F20101206_AABYPR sullivan_j.pdf
4fd9a5186cc46eae525a50560b67863c
302362be0c8483b7ebbd582e1d923fbb00d34b0a
20113 F20101206_AACACM sullivan_j_Page_018.QC.jpg
0ec7487875cd832ca303f648db8a3e07
a8ca9298e8d4daccd5e94307f96bbfd3cdc5c857
31220 F20101206_AACABX sullivan_j_Page_170.QC.jpg
8ee5e46d125bc5804d77acaedeef3442
08d8f263dc2b5c176b2df9decd4df5ce26de73e6
F20101206_AABZTI sullivan_j_Page_147.tif
dd24af91571e29490f44deecfeef0e7a
45cade142f3344c005a485a831b4bb4e1af5de26
F20101206_AABZSU sullivan_j_Page_105.tif
411b1bb4bc56551d74ee45a728a44d19
61a09d45be8001c60933b599e5960dce97f62c83
24051 F20101206_AABYQG sullivan_j_Page_099.QC.jpg
40adfb886f99f8e88deb419cd9c0bd5a
ea5592c25aedccea8a7fa5bcb4689986dce3e846
9940 F20101206_AABYPS sullivan_j_Page_002.jpg
5bc65f32130e0e17ae72428b84fe4d85
04b585e5169b7214ce7aed7df11d05f2decd2bc1
24893 F20101206_AACACN sullivan_j_Page_024.QC.jpg
fc36c57ffb3b19b2f4c7de0262e5799a
e16528e73be8ad945d9f0d9926e3650e5c00713a
26042 F20101206_AACABY sullivan_j_Page_087.QC.jpg
9d7895677f8dd183de8cf7e2e6918156
313721d79a06fb02e8aececb479b0d489f909818
F20101206_AABZTJ sullivan_j_Page_150.tif
adcd6f1e17a97f392bcf5daa8aab5272
301c52f45b496a5e4934a95160d28e6f3b2c4844
F20101206_AABZSV sullivan_j_Page_107.tif
7d1d0caa98d8d804ef885eaf18de8439
9d162fedc6f612ce4862e3f203484d8f6d65b80c
1051976 F20101206_AABYQH sullivan_j_Page_012.jp2
0b15610851640cbd7bcab603661009c1
77ef2a7710a4bb5903c1d72aa038f282376b1601
33129 F20101206_AABYPT sullivan_j_Page_079.pro
ef8e278b83e97836a8308c5e9c1b9a69
7083b1891a53f2641963e48dd173da413316dd1f
6583 F20101206_AACACO sullivan_j_Page_040thm.jpg
c404c182fc3add2cc7a2c4e31aef32c9
2367c9e9b6ed66fa964f4d25dae75805dd2a417b
4400 F20101206_AACABZ sullivan_j_Page_128thm.jpg
f851daa9d3a2c1761dbe6fb70b3660ef
f7c92a8652f1cb56e37d69e19c4c14155fd968f4
F20101206_AABZTK sullivan_j_Page_151.tif
5beae8aa930d257479c1325280bd4c2e
615dfa35b9bfa6b716e64378cc91e8d54ad8914f
F20101206_AABZSW sullivan_j_Page_108.tif
64597479870c10d83513513de67b3fd1
25c75c2d7015c3ec1a0ed95cedc4972a262954f9
2141 F20101206_AABYQI sullivan_j_Page_097.txt
3f2f69dd5254fe040b86fe16a5d70059
2d382e17bb6eb76e92e6b5bccce0acc6ea9abe02
2985 F20101206_AABYPU sullivan_j_Page_181.txt
0d23b3b51342328f0eb8d4293f043864
d0e199958516a4525e83f2faa718a63f1b23efcd
104516 F20101206_AABZUA sullivan_j_Page_008.pro
63f66caf32f5987f8ecd4047f2f19a11
cec1b406a5f85ce6ff35e355724b332843887b53
F20101206_AABZTL sullivan_j_Page_152.tif
e2a07e21ba033f6054c86ced5b811300
bbb43f93e317517c584b5bc376dab147037110be
F20101206_AABZSX sullivan_j_Page_110.tif
215f9233b66562213cfea500a13c3a44
0b7ce4c83d4c89e5bb80a9d4b8c1311cc01d2fb5
16338 F20101206_AABYQJ sullivan_j_Page_118.pro
be9c6890a1455999a9f5e8a28541454b
107e19686ec630da5550a821d11874977f5e0790
2175 F20101206_AABYPV sullivan_j_Page_041.txt
24b3e2c250aa3d5f881c72a4ba28ef71
f02642247d8002926b5a131ed49097244199a378
6364 F20101206_AACACP sullivan_j_Page_055thm.jpg
7f3d23264d7a37f362169f305742aa9c
04f5b9a8cd565a6fb3f68092eb735176de570e0c
28017 F20101206_AABZUB sullivan_j_Page_013.pro
b65228ac710a36e99ecbdb5cab0ed2b7
2ea9ed650c725f4b7f1ce4c03e6f6156611c0964
F20101206_AABZTM sullivan_j_Page_153.tif
c00952b7f2153ff7ecd90daa92f80ce7
14a4887b07919c4e2593eef4c81b011e49c79200
F20101206_AABZSY sullivan_j_Page_114.tif
a3d402d743d547dfa0bce36283fd151b
9659a2fca175192e9a005a9cfb5eb26e87dac656
35723 F20101206_AABYQK sullivan_j_Page_080.jpg
66eafe4874e25a629524c0fa00e93db9
2c5bf25ea8f815cb1328308f67daff1c9bf61ae8
90748 F20101206_AABYPW sullivan_j_Page_177.pro
95df1cbbc02cffa3d5710015c60917a5
e7842c30382fc2f739486384ce232f570795b8da
23361 F20101206_AACACQ sullivan_j_Page_064.QC.jpg
f5dfee8bc21facc11a7ccbf353022702
da58c72f60d43f0358ff0593dc50bd4f626309a9
46106 F20101206_AABZUC sullivan_j_Page_020.pro
59b2f423a5607d162aa842c1e7fe7a25
fd0e391dc9ae8bd65995b9acaed6575a73721820
F20101206_AABZTN sullivan_j_Page_154.tif
2f54677064472860f9acca3076a9b978
6ac21167641ec4e8c869328587bf963f9a1aec94
F20101206_AABZSZ sullivan_j_Page_118.tif
5664153d8721fc585332a78f21fcb2d8
544a0249f96ad907bd4a80771736e78dcaf88b9f
78870 F20101206_AABYRA sullivan_j_Page_064.jpg
ad7738f67cf97eedc5f8d68f877ad7a4
e1520202c32d8b12490c1520ba41d18bed961c98
57138 F20101206_AABYQL sullivan_j_Page_127.jpg
02efb80ad7972a2772f33eb0908ad48b
fb4f6096c26eb9c6f42776f27c6eb75ce1379608
22978 F20101206_AABYPX sullivan_j_Page_111.QC.jpg
8351f82897f6a29e8f41c3c40133984e
89e21f6be3d3bd2e49a27a3f796c9c57e963ad9f
24319 F20101206_AACACR sullivan_j_Page_090.QC.jpg
b8d3ea78748d12b8b28503da9bd5bad3
9bc75c0cc0d9c3adaa71601275ee6f40cd4ea83d
9004 F20101206_AABZUD sullivan_j_Page_021.pro
bbd3a4160707d69a29ddc818e8d4695a
91f04738f9c1191a9f6a8e661d2f95a3f41d42ec
F20101206_AABZTO sullivan_j_Page_157.tif
c127651ea54d83e60cf8f4d6a1dc9dfc
f84e2e93c3d2babf1727c36e923f716d4363dc24
F20101206_AABYRB sullivan_j_Page_060.tif
69b19c354d7ee7515985e5b38f139e83
904533d5ee83a9a0128668f27d0ed9360cba4473
107276 F20101206_AABYQM sullivan_j_Page_057.jp2
5aaf121fd87542f1f7e26ff02a3cd770
d521eadecb10bcc5f08472c384f2ae31dee3de5c
F20101206_AABYPY sullivan_j_Page_159.tif
d4ddbc77f3f317295f158ee5dcce5475
a41afd9769807a20ef7db84a639c881cdf7a7727
3895 F20101206_AACACS sullivan_j_Page_119thm.jpg
a1e45cc6a257c33aab31822366115ed4
dee415e5376cef8b8e7968ae40c25073d1b72714
53127 F20101206_AABZUE sullivan_j_Page_024.pro
a6ce4bcccc7f8941093299243b9a7fca
f38a8d0925275bce59f2c8b9a9f9e7b187da0eee
F20101206_AABZTP sullivan_j_Page_158.tif
fba9f2f7f5b284311fe58c57f735a5ea
0effabef5e92001a1f5dd7da43e4154048ba9965
77900 F20101206_AABYRC sullivan_j_Page_089.jpg
817f9ea1a4f93e987707e113b2c6b3a2
598bca9c07ec2e64efb7b4dedc20c891fac87aed
3770 F20101206_AABYQN sullivan_j_Page_129thm.jpg
537f56a395ce640da0825b670b84fd7f
e42f05db83bbc22d476022383fa736a53b40d703
2249 F20101206_AABYPZ sullivan_j_Page_001thm.jpg
de3b6333659500109e25dc96fed69243
9258be71160344ee8820d6d1034db1ac672ebb1d
3860 F20101206_AACACT sullivan_j_Page_121thm.jpg
c49583e6dd063e03334736a06b182f92
3917b8e96f18a7ccdb9c9494d7fabb209395b0d6
57246 F20101206_AABZUF sullivan_j_Page_029.pro
de1b61a3d3812a97140eb2800ce1f7dd
7cdda572627ee2a037238050cdb217db4b51a177
F20101206_AABZTQ sullivan_j_Page_160.tif
5c4456fe76ca6568e057b3f642fe117f
bab81214375ffcd015c28eb30d04cb1366b61bc2
39877 F20101206_AABYRD sullivan_j_Page_019.pro
5cb962780482e83e3cbae634c1fe16d5
f61b62c7bb07dcae150891960d9cfe4438a3dd0c
F20101206_AABYQO sullivan_j_Page_133.tif
69f11b408537cdaf7d815dd25a9da3c3
8703be345558e3db695e64cb11423d627f335ebb
50975 F20101206_AABZUG sullivan_j_Page_035.pro
ca3f537ed3d025f83d64858dfc19e556
a4ed340e7cbc50c7ffd506c998986d23fc9119db
F20101206_AABZTR sullivan_j_Page_166.tif
5b84234c88b37cd56b18ba36fb42098a
210428c4335a9f374083fc0bf9a10eb519bb3754
1140 F20101206_AABYRE sullivan_j_Page_013.txt
e03b5829530c357557d18a437b1749de
be5183a7188e8771511f4d7bfc84599cca6d140c
48805 F20101206_AABYQP sullivan_j_Page_054.pro
01f49999e65b94fa563060965e2b22c2
96a512bbd20e1b134fe23edcb6cc23054b2c4489
F20101206_AABZTS sullivan_j_Page_167.tif
93ee3cacaadfdbe1100baa54b9eaa4e5
c62e144f91d33a069e4ad01d5e2c66e54f7edfc3
F20101206_AABYQQ sullivan_j_Page_130.tif
6a81c9473c5b1a302527e73d3d5d7748
e2598d673dba039dd2313bfd9e58faf8bb56ca52
50205 F20101206_AABZUH sullivan_j_Page_040.pro
c54ce113224338c96405b04a32a5f0ce
403e6e399de4df3cb58bd77f8c5459a11f9547ad
F20101206_AABZTT sullivan_j_Page_174.tif
8433007bcb723d0690b98b14ae77cae1
d7515d7e10836d31c511f0f9235f48b5b8016089
85130 F20101206_AABYRF sullivan_j_Page_186.jpg
5f28fbe5fb4df47d2adc302ab273370c
def9083e5add0ec601f1bb63d0996a809f074b7c
2904 F20101206_AABYQR sullivan_j_Page_136thm.jpg
5bf2eaa56f65751611397b047b334b2b
06ce8a81f1f23583abee806ef6186c1b3969185d
50772 F20101206_AABZUI sullivan_j_Page_044.pro
d446adfea00613a8d42548d7f938d122
774bfce6d458564e16956a64b1be4e31fbf7a0da
F20101206_AABZTU sullivan_j_Page_175.tif
a859d40b30c95026e930880b4691362f
4273d6348aa5f287205ce981668b4d0ec6031edf
184264 F20101206_AABYRG sullivan_j_Page_156.jp2
56f3de7b18e5ea18ce42d6d9e82bd80a
e22b84b35e2446ef2003a305c3cbdc8140822952
16510 F20101206_AABYQS sullivan_j_Page_004.pro
8fa66a973af3f638902e8e0a0c26ad98
faa93522d46fd3b63cf15233addf703effc250aa
54841 F20101206_AABZUJ sullivan_j_Page_047.pro
536c1321d25494401810c005b73e9b08
1901c7f5558b1336c3911124aa0fd941ced26e5b
F20101206_AABZTV sullivan_j_Page_181.tif
55baea58d3528e2be5e867c268aca384
09fb1073825baf4c4427b0324a0e398ad3674389
27518 F20101206_AABYRH sullivan_j_Page_006.QC.jpg
c0ba92c6b74f1c4a9836d245c0133f56
be62c62c63ad5f7ff74053ebc3db0c44ed0f6236
33547 F20101206_AABYQT sullivan_j_Page_106.pro
deff5cf7878b74e80f3e95083f0ccdec
8daa4818586856e639a259b80cb56b1d4983aa7d
51189 F20101206_AABZUK sullivan_j_Page_048.pro
8a6f213da7c692fd5450e36bca6565cd
0e60bc8eef2b67c0454d8db3ca9dbe7eb5794c07
F20101206_AABZTW sullivan_j_Page_182.tif
bebf6fa221f657b6fe850cdfb94aca8a
e1649ee6e03ddbae0b4bfc928ab13c2d9e20d341
2085 F20101206_AABYRI sullivan_j_Page_085.txt
80f333d4e2fc78cf5d81eaefed3c64d7
bd59c4c46acfd3f634e88154a971297f56c90439
12862 F20101206_AABYQU sullivan_j_Page_070.QC.jpg
f6ecb1a06856508374ead9fdabf1a8da
b78d6d2964079c0bb0ae28294f74b9aeec19998b
43831 F20101206_AABZVA sullivan_j_Page_110.pro
0bdd4dfab6c574e5555dee988a9fb4c3
7b9a948f16f72c2ace2834ab3f7a3343763b7dc3
53388 F20101206_AABZUL sullivan_j_Page_049.pro
7c215fe99ce23b9626a2fd10aaad7dae
f7da8aab06a8ce72a816e7075402a952761aebc7
F20101206_AABZTX sullivan_j_Page_185.tif
a4e074db49cf0c94e47475f220212f53
9ceb7f157d5b1bd11ad5fb822487f407768e5d18
169501 F20101206_AABYRJ sullivan_j_Page_157.jp2
fb798c6bcab1a318c4c904d76ad0303e
8f90857f407e41cd805177c7f509c5718e22f90f
44045 F20101206_AABYQV sullivan_j_Page_107.jpg
683e8a0162ca645d70464f8991244168
efc441534d68d11f7e27cf5ca18e00dc2765f606
54034 F20101206_AABZVB sullivan_j_Page_112.pro
caf7d36fd52798fc4ff5edfce42d8ecc
55976d75dc563b3e62a8c0c187e4b4dc13a638ce
52284 F20101206_AABZUM sullivan_j_Page_051.pro
bafeb01031b6da41d00e37c0dc0a5138
01673f32dc2eba821842d4ddb1c9da9b7a91c081
8244 F20101206_AABZTY sullivan_j_Page_001.pro
10fde59d329c0fda4d80f1d35846b306
cab69baff0cdd2508f0d5d91e03b5bf827581d5c
11794 F20101206_AABYRK sullivan_j_Page_011.QC.jpg
9835cadafab60243015ec1290cd861c3
6a6d6b175efb6e51673f9e87a49808b9d06c182f
77872 F20101206_AABYQW sullivan_j_Page_036.jpg
e317d66d696a77fabbe33a4fd26e063d
c733579683b5ac828c73ba0a6a391dce0b1ea201
31987 F20101206_AABZVC sullivan_j_Page_114.pro
6ee369da02debbe5cf229acf9505d962
cd6c6791fd720f1f9f3dab289eef28ddba4277cb
51589 F20101206_AABZUN sullivan_j_Page_053.pro
fc21ef72add92bcbdc4b63ee3d8a1f4d
f8c295269669bc87cc444be705a737564f047212
97576 F20101206_AABZTZ sullivan_j_Page_006.pro
a5f1bae20744ea31a55faaeda1b796f7
16c714651f6b8e7eac25a5343e3248de5b9197dd
55853 F20101206_AABYRL sullivan_j_Page_124.jpg
1c7e1b6b9fb052e83a3d8ac3a6b0101a
bf432c42ad4295c097376c9bb9b4c070354bd1ef
18291 F20101206_AABYQX sullivan_j_Page_075.QC.jpg
86c1c5a8ff317f3080f6889480eccc98
895361a3aa0473679882c7853295f5b66a675fad
F20101206_AABYSA sullivan_j_Page_010.jp2
dc0deba7af4cd0366d0cab3b0add19a0
201992e451e1ca80ed56539ac333d01941d1a4c3
28404 F20101206_AABZVD sullivan_j_Page_116.pro
f99ad3f26eb271fb6b6d753bb048cb20
cf3800ce89e018d771c1b03b61a4a55c8ebbd3ee
57376 F20101206_AABZUO sullivan_j_Page_065.pro
dcc811efbe9664de13b06fb3a703bbed
e1c1cfbf2b4702d21c487b0f7b030cad50dc5ceb
22547 F20101206_AABYRM sullivan_j_Page_091.QC.jpg
4d799fd3cf779d5eccb7469605bbb330
3bd15885f9481119ccb88322391e62e5c5ca66d4
1051977 F20101206_AABYQY sullivan_j_Page_005.jp2
0fff496f2fddb41360b4699dd8215e3a
c8e4e449215a626de4aa930a4ad49ef1ec7bed48
22125 F20101206_AABYSB sullivan_j_Page_060.QC.jpg
2b86618720336396d342e8ffaf3bd6c7
40026513f95edd86556498bef619a2238eaeb892
13406 F20101206_AABZVE sullivan_j_Page_119.pro
e0a7e1a3e1c1c973e2fa362611060767
32f7ff3017a9cff95d187baf1d454527717dd646
12332 F20101206_AABZUP sullivan_j_Page_067.pro
8c737cc20122288a02f3ce1b486d1e69
cf9a794e3944c17f426dd7ea3ac5f2a91f3e3ca1
33204 F20101206_AABYRN sullivan_j_Page_160.QC.jpg
e1a09cb77af9b30fe974ba0d10e83b78
143a070ec27d682f4559c0b06e0adaf8c67620fa
60935 F20101206_AABYQZ sullivan_j_Page_088.pro
22039ca947cd7bb661817d2a4c8c79af
2969a51ff7242b516cc69375453123b663718859
4629 F20101206_AABYSC sullivan_j_Page_114thm.jpg
1eb1e6e83ea062bc3d7af44374384817
da8d4b305800150bdb78d2d286d34336298cc5bb
20051 F20101206_AABZVF sullivan_j_Page_120.pro
56764185f6ec3c49b6fc4daf0459f764
fdc3a9e825f3a5fce69967e891d954ef9696354f
5184 F20101206_AABZUQ sullivan_j_Page_069.pro
5374e977b39d4495d6e97a468c4bc242
fe43b1c19767af9b39c75d7e1c6b61a06d1615ea
100662 F20101206_AABYRO sullivan_j_Page_167.jpg
f083c91c7824bde30da001e04c606579
10826403454e5112072f53c71c078bc176eb4ba4
122513 F20101206_AABYSD sullivan_j_Page_065.jp2
8244164a7a4dd311d23e0c82b9856633
2452db62f1947f44ce1e1b19d7250bde87be784d
19163 F20101206_AABZVG sullivan_j_Page_128.pro
a1d008f189803546eccb3d395396eed3
8f2362fa3f839927c9a0c6037c897c7cfcb70bf0
37613 F20101206_AABZUR sullivan_j_Page_075.pro
8ef1fece8a8eb52dfb08a7014f4ab75b
7d7f1762f08064bfa0dc932254721196425a98fa
87369 F20101206_AABYRP sullivan_j_Page_179.jpg
bde7cc00fae923db250cccff1df33499
d6197b97263312de7021c83375223b400c47b573
6928 F20101206_AABYSE sullivan_j_Page_046thm.jpg
0157a7396e854497429a19f88c5ba58c
4d7c1751968363ed3fcfe18a090f98ded3ed3e7a
15978 F20101206_AABZVH sullivan_j_Page_129.pro
9dad2790ceffa95f70f983e0f23ecda2
4d258edc3346ffb1a0892030b0bd277b57aac8c8
18031 F20101206_AABZUS sullivan_j_Page_080.pro
5d41b3c26ec9ba610b2676588f2525da
5fb9d70151d6d9ebf1010dfa77070597154d68d3
1775 F20101206_AABYRQ sullivan_j_Page_106.txt
81361f504024f875c27bc29d5b463cba
c11d199c5492ea101067c991f7fc2ca6b2cb5847
22889 F20101206_AABYSF sullivan_j_Page_001.jpg
aa8daeed2e979cca917f5a800eba85ec
828b79375c84bcabac0879256dfeac617d0f2b25
48036 F20101206_AABZUT sullivan_j_Page_083.pro
f34e1c7496f822797b383eed3d70f056
e2a864cb7f9d8bb626fddd3ea16857684465981b
10407 F20101206_AABYRR sullivan_j_Page_122.QC.jpg
fa05230b1e57a1ae54db48680230eb61
762435dc1511bce151e4e1b56263452e5f3eabd9
53575 F20101206_AABZVI sullivan_j_Page_132.pro
7eaa5b45927e214d89b882c1fe171bf7
9dd26eba50a63f7c7d7300f48114d92775664832
55222 F20101206_AABZUU sullivan_j_Page_086.pro
cf2b89f28bf6752352f545fffba2cef5
daa548c25a4bfd3fa371efc7ebe8737ae4824ab3
6939 F20101206_AABYRS sullivan_j_Page_084thm.jpg
c5c90706a2a5f541283a472ce918a21c
09d39cac317872f4c062e842c1abd64a7a3c3878
F20101206_AABYSG sullivan_j_Page_083.tif
facd5cc82a2a5cd02b152dce04a77ce1
c48f0428fd2bf1ade51507fbe7e3ef49c0041b92
51784 F20101206_AABZVJ sullivan_j_Page_134.pro
45f5428e6ba1a2fbf2a647bbb3853e13
74ec9828ff636e79109444a70c9cd10cd2ab5bc5
54471 F20101206_AABZUV sullivan_j_Page_089.pro
39122b78dc691e54d649c0480552bc0d
b9b5afc54d5150e0ccb97cce9ac3654090392cfa
23149 F20101206_AABYRT sullivan_j_Page_057.QC.jpg
b8f98bc29bee3d8d6089c90f7955f05f
f236f7311b7e26d7ef9df0e6e832ad78752c46b8
17554 F20101206_AABYSH sullivan_j_Page_140.pro
570667d82e145ad57536f0bf8023d28e
90e454b80f618a0464ab0bbd12000cb7b6b7c74d
15066 F20101206_AABZVK sullivan_j_Page_136.pro
77553c148841f7790edd02d43fb42ae1
90988d7d49ab81e5fb230c1597d65a20646267fe
54201 F20101206_AABZUW sullivan_j_Page_092.pro
7074a975cb3007d5d9edbc3ca65dcfb0
288997d70b7d35f4198f132f22f4b0469c3b3dba
2976 F20101206_AABYRU sullivan_j_Page_004thm.jpg
c4bed2fce5f565180e68564fe23cc079
f444b42cdce55fc9c4aced5f9500a0cd4a92d783
574 F20101206_AABYSI sullivan_j_Page_184.txt
de746a70641ebcecc3152539f002d294
fa0d3224e3936c965129266b80ed675e9e3f95e9
48880 F20101206_AABZWA sullivan_j_Page_187.pro
d667fa2851fa7b272193c298dd30a43f
947c4819c7c7b900084cf86ed4ca61a991d5e10a
29041 F20101206_AABZVL sullivan_j_Page_138.pro
69903c4b15af2fdf2300d20f02d24d17
6c1352b6bf696fa9c8fab5ef7ebad24df486ffc5
51824 F20101206_AABZUX sullivan_j_Page_093.pro
a86e9f4b13303149bd10363c359bb816
4904d8e55cd7a71a8a3f0ca5d55f52e85dead545
72242 F20101206_AABYRV sullivan_j_Page_158.pro
53dde69c658bc53dc72f3cf8a61804f6
11d0e3e080d09cfec146f9c3f97554f4be338a41
112164 F20101206_AABYSJ sullivan_j_Page_134.jp2
2a32acc929fd93c786c101e9a5853cbd
6594adf03b55428d3f76995a578de83339916945
481 F20101206_AABZWB sullivan_j_Page_001.txt
4723a49cca21fca348f3c32df26acf85
2a9154f294fc3b622055ba5c0d9636a02b3aa350
25626 F20101206_AABZVM sullivan_j_Page_141.pro
05b6801942d933e14473a883602104b2
714217b14def4680794c5848de4ae02a4b7b6b7d
53568 F20101206_AABZUY sullivan_j_Page_094.pro
cba94e5afaf9b9d42eeb3762f99a347c
3ada055fa4e0763fac328685c9f521bccf29415f
6483 F20101206_AABYRW sullivan_j_Page_109thm.jpg
febef0b0424e64991db9129337f768ec
e25884df655acfcd686d545af3e257735718d93e
28676 F20101206_AABYSK sullivan_j_Page_158.QC.jpg
1297cf491f9dbf6ddf90803f4fc976e5
2ee9902377f462deef922672d9735fdd19ca9881
3584 F20101206_AABZWC sullivan_j_Page_005.txt
7e76823d3e12ce1b2ed90f53ee2651d1
0ba6343dd8fd4c1452caa69c1177903bb6e9b6b0
35800 F20101206_AABZVN sullivan_j_Page_145.pro
caf77849dfeadf6012fa27ef3ce2a5ec
28a1dd8cbdd925e61d2d7c733e33c36ed0b463fc
47957 F20101206_AABZUZ sullivan_j_Page_109.pro
5ac2030bb79eef6ed405997f848de199
a702cd2fc737d6d9902db0daaa12a7efeef60478
F20101206_AABYRX sullivan_j_Page_180.tif
8cb2a84c9cca0e733970361f7571583c
242f30161ac066c38bfecdfbb2018944c7ae4d56
185937 F20101206_AABYTA sullivan_j_Page_069.jp2
77b13e64667506f648da01a0d4ebab1e
29ebce415b3b49cadcdcdc3d24706d6b18c580cc
5027 F20101206_AABYSL sullivan_j_Page_182thm.jpg
a333cf724622e7901090bf5a85b4369e
50f26ad5cab360e8887d009aa608797651529acd
3730 F20101206_AABZWD sullivan_j_Page_007.txt
3abddfac334b702845ac7f025ac7950f
bed68f3e7d077f5e015daa18011c090dc507b135
3205 F20101206_AABZVO sullivan_j_Page_150.pro
9ff2849a1b09e2bd324f5e1decc0d43e
76837d835ae8791928f674ea84b1854cd5329425
4795 F20101206_AABYRY sullivan_j_Page_143thm.jpg
0977cafd0e4648bf463f612288d3e222
0ee3b8691fe1c19ea21ba7b0306ceafb7bd4b702
F20101206_AABYTB sullivan_j_Page_030.tif
72c3791cd65890cd54cc51ad8660f07a
aeb12c8fcf4c3634020edf2a24593f46f4f3b2cf
72490 F20101206_AABYSM sullivan_j_Page_093.jpg
79d4bf26b18485f6cf20148394390213
ab4928cd3387c79d7648939a2a7e79a610d5052c
4217 F20101206_AABZWE sullivan_j_Page_008.txt
828b4e7420d44ff5ef7f4fe318bcd764
49cead4af73670c9f113242be09f726d02bb0079
88715 F20101206_AABZVP sullivan_j_Page_154.pro
f0a033e9d8a62d60e51e44eea06f7cf3
0fbe471a21f87778a5495c7603daeebac4db2e5f
23122 F20101206_AABYRZ sullivan_j_Page_092.QC.jpg
92dcf4f9e9cec72f69adde8cc06e386c
b3120b37299d38ff9a9e015192b494c96f548cea
2161 F20101206_AABYTC sullivan_j_Page_047.txt
40a114b892779ec89ce7b1736d95ca7e
6a5f38640d085cb347b62013fddde75545b12f8c
2458 F20101206_AABYSN sullivan_j_Page_012.txt
76312b9d7f3121199a7cde91ee29ee0e
099032c6657f10ba4c442d7699037621368793af
1838 F20101206_AABZWF sullivan_j_Page_020.txt
dba7c1164d26f6f8772071bd1e390d2b
a4ac53d34baeabfa17027634c829d92c8a08e659
72661 F20101206_AABZVQ sullivan_j_Page_162.pro
fba5d824b7b225ae60afd482df66b13d
d185e1cf791677e426691880f730d278671d3c68
F20101206_AABYTD sullivan_j_Page_163.tif
e701763496f143e976054e2f3180734d
6eb52aa36f1a0795367f94258ac4cb5ba9c5bae3
115962 F20101206_AABYSO sullivan_j_Page_066.jp2
409b9fb3884d54405a17bcfd2cdb3e62
a43d48b4dab1ebbb169605835ee680113696683a
1891 F20101206_AABZWG sullivan_j_Page_025.txt
2e76a2dd5adbb9063c84e00292979240
ef938089d2224c96e9e2d2edc60ec4dbdb964a56
64718 F20101206_AABZVR sullivan_j_Page_163.pro
e4a6138998ff695138c8d96d6797a91d
8f00bcec5d6ec7f385eac03e42f6622a64e6b334
4998 F20101206_AABYTE sullivan_j_Page_014thm.jpg
12c683967eaaf07bca2b82638803651e
e57be7a0176282774efbba6ad31205ff4ef24905
78127 F20101206_AABYSP sullivan_j_Page_187.jpg
a5ca6fd8d46fc110db31274c6a7c0784
44c09cc0491868faafa53eb9f8172341c02828c9
F20101206_AABZWH sullivan_j_Page_027.txt
fbc4ae6a47770913ccdf13bcd8cd51d9
1a899b83d5981b8254f851f4f0327f04448232d9
86174 F20101206_AABZVS sullivan_j_Page_170.pro
4d20298ad82e803c80f319ef591c12ef
4d2768666ea2c83b6070ff393e03fc564bbaa04b
735229 F20101206_AABYTF sullivan_j_Page_103.jp2
c81f2a72b2fb1df4d131cf123fa43a65
aa07cab4a0df4e5214c1794b4b69dcc04e695d5f
27631 F20101206_AABYSQ sullivan_j_Page_152.QC.jpg
885b6f6c2851540c13c7eeb9fc204126
aa023fb8515928b456dad312b4b5f8ddbf355a71
2099 F20101206_AABZWI sullivan_j_Page_032.txt
64d7de21093d30f28d6692a5299c2ebb
57a69ebc243d21ad22592317bfbf56be34f4f720
80191 F20101206_AABZVT sullivan_j_Page_178.pro
e5e5a7ee3d5cbddce3cb0254b273f812
4564a99dea6b489a0d5fbf08fef3d904d10db25b
34146 F20101206_AABYTG sullivan_j_Page_129.jpg
afad5d555279a14388cbcb4354b6471a
080c15359c41bc5b4f7b7be39046c6261ab02444
6354 F20101206_AABYSR sullivan_j_Page_111thm.jpg
511b22f37f75fe8e0ba0de9a3faab2a4
c9731ea80a4e4e9acfe058bfc07ef0e32d3d0323
64229 F20101206_AABZVU sullivan_j_Page_179.pro
1edbbe58ec5854a60fc731ac4f1523ca
cfecb812026cca322658316b927de50681fd1264
F20101206_AABYSS sullivan_j_Page_115.tif
2efa68b5fecfa92a5025e40067e0925f
23f1d9ac15e6e54c0848c844e8984b586c51660e
F20101206_AABZWJ sullivan_j_Page_034.txt
55155d83c3da551c88bf6a59ba4fc384
9c144d704ca1120836d94a5b04f9a70758972c6c
77873 F20101206_AABZVV sullivan_j_Page_180.pro
476a4f26f91aeb85ccc4146ab2b4e06d
435435df3639d3a855d14310ae744c743d9e8c83
113532 F20101206_AABYTH sullivan_j_Page_168.jpg
03fcd23ad5101af6715c9619d9165278
64381d2b9f9cd34545c53f22a30335f4d7f9b185
2806 F20101206_AABYST sullivan_j_Page_152.txt
d50f40ec4e185a4a85927c7f4b6dda4b
f2d1d02c186a83180215a7dc6ab5936b98b8735e
2025 F20101206_AABZWK sullivan_j_Page_035.txt
70221f2a3aa793b76d82313a1ef5b4a2
51876e84cc6971d01d87dd4c1b87228303923e08
74505 F20101206_AABZVW sullivan_j_Page_181.pro
5d5a22d5518a9daa0b314df1d67a7599
a191ef60194bed5da320b15345bb0d9f556b53af
7544 F20101206_AABYTI sullivan_j_Page_169thm.jpg
83bee5dcfe43a332f47791b638fa07e4
316f4aa76418f8cd053e0adba2f64b09809c62cc
58509 F20101206_AABYSU sullivan_j_Page_019.jpg
921d69bd883612e6120f47cdb2a39bbd
5e58694a425a8700e8fcf28b9faf8cb3c29a1579
1328 F20101206_AABZXA sullivan_j_Page_079.txt
3d4e435a9c3c09f8608c9d2f860745d0
e9ef5956e27ae70936bed3ffb0b5359756c830b8
2125 F20101206_AABZWL sullivan_j_Page_039.txt
fb540c458f4ed43a7bca7fedf2a732e8
2c778674d46d0b56c4a59970542b21b1e578aaff
53668 F20101206_AABZVX sullivan_j_Page_182.pro
a43726698852ba4f984a0d8c2f976578
0b55bdda54c20159efa30239c5c0888683028b48
12756 F20101206_AABYTJ sullivan_j_Page_076.pro
9b7b26229b0c265db07dde0adeb87031
9e962c9531e713e804b3f4c9db95bdd50082d48f
F20101206_AABYSV sullivan_j_Page_020.tif
562b3d5fef5b00894edd0c2dcb2f8810
1dac311b2d9544e8011e8c1c3a7c8289b68b3b45
757 F20101206_AABZXB sullivan_j_Page_080.txt
255f7606db0a265c291f5aec8e6ac2c7
55f0843ff8483d0c8dbf9caa1d030d552a3d660e
2145 F20101206_AABZWM sullivan_j_Page_042.txt
5ed64b21aac0cf4661d8aa27d803df6e
df28eb9039471f58876481a67e5c377cd7f1711a
19885 F20101206_AABZVY sullivan_j_Page_183.pro
223946c95f783d73c5e597e2d5ebd2c6
4842b54ae9df2c97151998779115a91bf20015ba
110472 F20101206_AABYTK sullivan_j_Page_043.jp2
74b2fcfaefd30931ac13389a5fe2eddf
b9fc4a8ceb9dd3e0d077459a96c4aa50c516db33
759 F20101206_AABYSW sullivan_j_Page_140.txt
8ebd795a972a8f21d29d34facc01251e
8d22bce58e93005b6b75a3384c69a91725dd92a6
1987 F20101206_AABZXC sullivan_j_Page_081.txt
c3e25343bbf545891ea20ea9fa99d561
1985afd6f3333d70504a263dc2598d9286943fe8
2038 F20101206_AABZWN sullivan_j_Page_044.txt
b0e6fcea78e702fa0cd40f314849a3a9
5a7a23fe9f77dd43309401ace4f7d8a16ea0fa8f
9608 F20101206_AABZVZ sullivan_j_Page_184.pro
f997c98905877c7257956dbba9418979
35d6898dbbf8bf51f85e44692bac8ed3fdea809f
779629 F20101206_AABYUA sullivan_j_Page_123.jp2
3540e651e1b125c53cbadc866d8a56e8
45f7bdf2b8531501e56da586f5269a149e027244
29074 F20101206_AABYTL sullivan_j_Page_155.QC.jpg
5627d181426803717015d20db931cfcc
e046f0a233171b53c4375bf71d89b6db41e7daed
2091 F20101206_AABYSX sullivan_j_Page_033.txt
cf3b902f26c4d970759f4eebccd92556
8e5a22aba38749f79663a83c0eb1d25d4b3ac970
1917 F20101206_AABZXD sullivan_j_Page_083.txt
0affcad4f2a30e26feb3a16f1c99f720
05b0e5777c9efa9ff7bc050f4553d72cab1e8167
2107 F20101206_AABZWO sullivan_j_Page_049.txt
3ca26135f2d1e47e32dc6e6a926af4ff
56b423eb6ca53359c6c2ceaedcdab540f2f46ae4
423625 F20101206_AABYUB sullivan_j_Page_120.jp2
a5758f4f94df851e2bdeb70cd0be66b2
e282d9d0e42abef690d4577d02c82054f834032b
2036 F20101206_AABYTM sullivan_j_Page_043.txt
891aa4ca5cd92d16930f2d9f012578fb
5cb294176ba4d81048269d1c4484944be34ba375
25199 F20101206_AABYSY sullivan_j_Page_186.QC.jpg
2d87ff538a7367be2e61d7fe8cc188e9
028e737e0f9af2ac405090fac649d50a68d78ad9
2203 F20101206_AABZXE sullivan_j_Page_087.txt
598da1d3bc6e0a1c282646b4a6370974
1b3f5a582a98c82e5eb31c40e2a35b5d65555083
F20101206_AABZWP sullivan_j_Page_051.txt
643b2cbaaa7714fba7b5120398a1d4dc
68f4bc470cd06c336dda7ee021f8645d97726c43
153236 F20101206_AABYUC sullivan_j_Page_169.jp2
73293e3b56a1f51ed49a34c5af668048
95ba82d817325673e5bca977696d467190e90239
3736 F20101206_AABYTN sullivan_j_Page_160.txt
0fdd6f970f4f32ac0fc6ac470734cb36
9544f3757b915f66fd953c10852b0dbc634a8e29
F20101206_AABYSZ sullivan_j_Page_013.tif
179282a73fe3e922f00e6bcedb3642a5
627e0883130ec1173a50650d9385be45c814a606
2442 F20101206_AABZXF sullivan_j_Page_088.txt
5c9a7d272a49322ac23fcdd11f8da879
ee6cda4ad8957ed0b35c4dd48f36fdcf3ec1da11
2070 F20101206_AABZWQ sullivan_j_Page_053.txt
19e4063f87c586811fc890f48bb43852
0129b0250031a1f4d202adb022f197fc762c280f
4156 F20101206_AABYUD sullivan_j_Page_006.txt
c44cdd87353fc289a99c5e5b53329687
1cc0369956e6cd1696d8ef6369363b210f4d71de
25516 F20101206_AABYTO sullivan_j_Page_112.QC.jpg
652518a04fe4ca5b75f2f7cb9d0f68a7
1358430eac4b5d24dfb9639d62a85a54c740e9d7
2169 F20101206_AABZXG sullivan_j_Page_089.txt
85025a6f7271ee3f1b016c0903f1904f
7274b61f9e464909848ed16623ec76721bea1651
1934 F20101206_AABZWR sullivan_j_Page_054.txt
429b5ded6c58e9a3509d5cd1487a1833
661fb66c0889ac91ba31bad37fb1bf75007e7fb5
26511 F20101206_AABYUE sullivan_j_Page_021.jpg
dd6e52fdeec6366ead501695d405a94e
7c4703e16f75fd756ac3ce7ab3e6abea59a32b60
88976 F20101206_AABYTP sullivan_j_Page_147.jp2
ef336b87c285928c0c7806365adcad10
606d91131541d0431e52e16f6d8a4c51b7c43f43
2035 F20101206_AABZXH sullivan_j_Page_091.txt
c5e3120240ceaa350ddb38cf2a354e94
a7df4da7316668a41a24a086168eeafb98e21be7
2113 F20101206_AABZWS sullivan_j_Page_056.txt
72e41ae60cc085d212dc3c69f32746c4
65bb0f13a4a5743cc1c7afcd5659528882202c6f
23208 F20101206_AABYUF sullivan_j_Page_040.QC.jpg
b9f07ed347de690a754824316140230d
3334b884e6f54b1b6bc59b84b67151075fb402d4
71420 F20101206_AABYTQ sullivan_j_Page_045.jpg
65336d4eaffaf42c392e832f5c58886b
2913b1e0ad1bd133282b8166309b61ac008564a5
2224 F20101206_AABZXI sullivan_j_Page_095.txt
f8419d67d8ad309c9ef2b2aeeb3c1277
9b7576bde5a12ec7e72f01a38ac40a5b1776e294
1864 F20101206_AABZWT sullivan_j_Page_060.txt
63da16c4ee4243b23f37449fa1317bd0
b8b6aaca0ca37acea841aaeb3d7aa7466dc11a88
18539 F20101206_AABYUG sullivan_j_Page_148.QC.jpg
d1ee9ff9da05425b7144c60f3d04c619
de4d68ef18e1d0ebe87e80374e4039ad55cd1693
40684 F20101206_AABYTR sullivan_j_Page_129.jp2
7bb6cd11db65d0de27a9f8a49aafa9d3
d78cfbb9c742dd7b8813d3a4e9dd03777326f40c
6477 F20101206_AABZAA sullivan_j_Page_082thm.jpg
c3795dd655967f2713b652738932624d
30ba1a6b5e5a27f13a6f78d30c7a60a4ba743dd3
1472 F20101206_AABZXJ sullivan_j_Page_100.txt
6698479c687c274f0043380a30e657bc
1f67d83e093f30ed0c31cf1a415c90dc39b2158b
2328 F20101206_AABZWU sullivan_j_Page_064.txt
45645eaefea9b054386993502d55fd35
a3cdddb588e00e2536a20d03ba059d9ddf488800
3420 F20101206_AABYUH sullivan_j_Page_122thm.jpg
f7827f6672632c1f8f6dceec84a8a9e7
8b7ad6952aea560a516ecc54c4dd7a984e379a93
46762 F20101206_AABYTS sullivan_j_Page_015.pro
fe943629117b1c9b3858e49e67413a6a
594167ba6c7193b56acf76a792bbc61a3e7c7228
7695 F20101206_AABZAB sullivan_j_Page_101.pro
38bcba16d6ea4c2a42465e6ab10406bf
7656241014f3049704a4a5082e10475e0e431113
F20101206_AABZWV sullivan_j_Page_066.txt
2abad26a64092d9dbd8d293a718817e9
529539bd7e601c1623c0c2bf07dfd4dfd17c8677
71250 F20101206_AABYTT sullivan_j_Page_061.jpg
383b74fc3d6f53dee1bdf0a0fe48443b
fafd4447c6b316afc651dc7dd1427e691a813312
2003 F20101206_AABZAC sullivan_j_Page_058.txt
c2f70e49c31737b4afed9d9fd424e96f
0709c7b4df2410d07c98d92ac866aa434d3a319a
727 F20101206_AABZXK sullivan_j_Page_102.txt
3ad04b6ebc0046c51057be5166b92397
e15b047d86fdafdec90c0523091ac30010e2eee2
669 F20101206_AABZWW sullivan_j_Page_070.txt
3be725fbdf19676385752fd4a4900122
7b2b6072fb1378c945fc5a4d8ae4e8b1e430ae33
74265 F20101206_AABYTU sullivan_j_Page_099.jpg
e29435a0af1b17042b266f9c99a16335
3fd7e395e57b681cb92754e215ed24b6a38f8f25
1965 F20101206_AABZAD sullivan_j_Page_031.txt
9d3d2be18123521beb2ec5229ea87718
291c9a0c9b8b3a26ea4431965c5b32feb676e082
97019 F20101206_AABYUI sullivan_j_Page_160.pro
e6fef1eaee320b70033cca2ddc9c51ee
ec33d613e5db8e732b01512178ed6b141f52642b
2104 F20101206_AABZYA sullivan_j_Page_149.txt
b74f6eac3a7a825e5de419eac92736f5
ed7103029730ae2b1c527827b738ce331b98dbb9
1152 F20101206_AABZXL sullivan_j_Page_104.txt
3705f68e467bdd9ff73662c0bfee2ab5
9acc06676c89fddf935c7582564fc002505e3f8a
265 F20101206_AABZWX sullivan_j_Page_071.txt
008645bde8cfc2a69eb298830516f84b
4349b4ed27c2a58f2134de17b680fe48f5ef5aa0
74666 F20101206_AABYTV sullivan_j_Page_135.jpg
71de3325e421597343264c7165bf567c
83bd22723aea8c0c8cdedd0b29efeb3e5e3934c0
74124 F20101206_AABZAE sullivan_j_Page_066.jpg
ba210e4c547357f77686cde3f78ddb3f
5bdb9f28220e2175ebd32eb2515ef4fa18ae225b
10777 F20101206_AABYUJ sullivan_j_Page_080.QC.jpg
3da947cfbd6d2af939ed6d120f1fc6f3
5fde094a2fcbdd388821771591ffab3fd206d76a
2802 F20101206_AABZYB sullivan_j_Page_151.txt
70c01739ddc097390ed61f392b435ec6
6fe0b284489bb0cb31139a251770305637e53e46
1203 F20101206_AABZXM sullivan_j_Page_107.txt
6921c1f0a41445334612bde4e2472a82
1dba6caf01a03c9dc14ad68ec54daf60dbaa2991
1094 F20101206_AABZWY sullivan_j_Page_072.txt
8fa540b0959beee86665876bf655ea6e
ae104db30789826cd3d9e6ec7b61468a37a3b3cf
23733 F20101206_AABYTW sullivan_j_Page_022.QC.jpg
58e6cb0c50cf4fe3ce81a1fdd955c317
ab127b9676b742d22c7b794fdbe915de393db4ea
48219 F20101206_AABZAF sullivan_j_Page_061.pro
17ca8bf4762ff55cb35a5701103afa43
19760209141d4f80449e041c279798c5a12e548a
2179 F20101206_AABYUK sullivan_j_Page_099.txt
36198fd88905daccd88f5732084f9727
bb9fc002c6d4d7f219bc3eb5ccc64303a884a4d6
3434 F20101206_AABZYC sullivan_j_Page_154.txt
262de84abcce029a5d2666cb2b78fc04
f3b5b730b380d146bb3f8a554ce0b2222df7ddfa
1761 F20101206_AABZXN sullivan_j_Page_110.txt
4636ffaa1d4e71e71437a92f4514c474
04de7331226b092ebd060c72c773cac857c4c20d
750 F20101206_AABZWZ sullivan_j_Page_073.txt
9af311d7562fd3d0d58ad3cc05851c4e
ee6be9e66164b9350e9a8f2c002937bbbe59521d
80269 F20101206_AABYTX sullivan_j_Page_026.jpg
bad1b9eb0924ca79e4c6664bbb09e9e5
7aa22c220e822b65339f7012c6d60bb70452df35
49093 F20101206_AABZAG sullivan_j_Page_062.pro
84a39721250799f8c9386f86674dcb12
a94dd13f115fa0fb80f58941f40e216862d65e08
108449 F20101206_AABYVA sullivan_j_Page_054.jp2
36b78b68bd7b12f20c795704b3d72804
bc07c70a7f63becf37debed8ad2a57a3f6bb869b
5715 F20101206_AABYUL sullivan_j_Page_071.QC.jpg
57f9673a8799f0169d5d1c9f59d6cb7c
7737565565ad4de54b3c363849cc98bbbf78c6e1
3174 F20101206_AABZYD sullivan_j_Page_155.txt
328663643156c7b0d2fe00623788b178
71f1da126517d0b6080f3bd5f7a8d29e608ed878
1935 F20101206_AABZXO sullivan_j_Page_111.txt
c316bd8f5ba4e288960b91689e382f9b
d1ac5fac2893dfee1f66c2abea89a76b6ea7588a
4911 F20101206_AABYTY sullivan_j_Page_074thm.jpg
6b86c600dfd9660cf56d7e53ffdba698
8edb255c84fa53565d7b828e89cb4cdc52cb7d65
F20101206_AABZAH sullivan_j_Page_038.tif
700d1ef293f7405e06f7fd010e45f36f
9487b66020ec5dcd82ec6807461f04226e7ad21e
25299 F20101206_AABYVB sullivan_j_Page_086.QC.jpg
d9a13efd29f2ae7d0d97b7766a1b147b
bc32403c94788b308cfcebe77ad8288da6b882e7
60734 F20101206_AABYUM sullivan_j_Page_098.pro
4d55a417479301c594613adfa90ad720
ec12c4230ef32166ecacc0b17ae8b260cbed4464
3304 F20101206_AABZYE sullivan_j_Page_157.txt
e901a382ac2a838a9e2a77d5436fb7db
53823f327095e65cf0b84fd6f12470e530b8f940
2167 F20101206_AABZXP sullivan_j_Page_112.txt
d7910e93b34715c20cafce0cd6fd72ad
50f5fb2143906f7158bd795a5d681682ef50100f
69970 F20101206_AABYTZ sullivan_j_Page_111.jpg
791ce4244b78d46436935c4c67d70513
27d7b4b25c091bec80932da4a5f9da041cba7419
108830 F20101206_AABZAI sullivan_j_Page_058.jp2
af0fd794fd62050d506ad0ca73b8eb10
8164c7625e18b751789ab2d0848e30a544057cc8
71681 F20101206_AABYVC sullivan_j_Page_082.jpg
6ef9b43a7924d3b999176c2125f6536a
afbe7233477c7c74cb0495486c7c0e165ee8d792
F20101206_AABYUN sullivan_j_Page_116.tif
8f3576aa7ed9f37d28d9cf6385f76ea4
b48992e064dabe59acabf2927fb0264aa742c2bc
2821 F20101206_AABZYF sullivan_j_Page_158.txt
fd1f2bed0e12c8141edc262b8e5ab3a5
af3e8c1671ca338c033b10b8ce8e51867158fbab
1384 F20101206_AABZXQ sullivan_j_Page_116.txt
2d7741f7258949c83b18377b2582d301
7125b91fbf5dcf8f36dc78aac41be41330d1fa18
5879 F20101206_AABZAJ sullivan_j_Page_096thm.jpg
890e1c3cc5d3e8698a75a7e9b5279257
0bf0dd131e32cb2bb2cec40c60836580cb8abf99
25306 F20101206_AABYVD sullivan_j_Page_039.QC.jpg
73f870e4ef13203f5d19f240c2151b90
76351c8131eb5e7e7e141c48e8242dc4f7a2c42b
3062 F20101206_AABYUO sullivan_j_Page_003.QC.jpg
16b5b06b48be8cc9966fd473b13bd815
e91a3345432ed41053428c114d46982218c6d383
3378 F20101206_AABZYG sullivan_j_Page_168.txt
dff9e54e0e733ac264bf3c0135da8860
30bd3b3842f584ce104eb4c79db6a1fce0951c7c
1991 F20101206_AABZXR sullivan_j_Page_126.txt
0b7f6a0461d05e057fe8a37733d3f2ef
1466ca428aee8e8e03a87d31a2db2fae59dc8a2f
2472 F20101206_AABZAK sullivan_j_Page_105thm.jpg
b93d3c7f35db05ffc1935d30491c1623
67dcca403066ba1b4b88de345a934eedc9bae831
107820 F20101206_AABYVE sullivan_j_Page_146.jp2
416ef3ebc3a2d679498d82fab1f6ea3b
197ced755cd3f163355ec629b38d6e8ce9faab18
F20101206_AABYUP sullivan_j_Page_094.txt
47f2370d6db67276e7e14a83d16e6b42
08443b865265445c14125200f7b7408150ccad24
3004 F20101206_AABZYH sullivan_j_Page_169.txt
0cd434cff3e2c49e8f4807a619c52096
3c325768abe3e6d5d14873f43e81d6240b1e820a
1736 F20101206_AABZXS sullivan_j_Page_127.txt
e19a1c76062b14f278e6178e579e8e40
0d30cbc6b4c946ff4712bcb960d33fb0df5dd417
135897 F20101206_AABZAL sullivan_j_Page_151.jp2
f759d6e720e43c2d87ce78b4a641e60b
6c0e6015809cfeb891113ac5fa61459719048354
13296 F20101206_AABYVF sullivan_j_Page_107.QC.jpg
4f72b1f96dd9ca539ce6d4e4fab81e0c
bd4c148aaaf57fc1d1c42e262880f6eb99993e84
F20101206_AABYUQ sullivan_j_Page_120.tif
9223aa27aa18c2a0f653e7925fcf863f
9322fadadee02b551cbd88add39ee793eb6b43e9
2138 F20101206_AABZYI sullivan_j_Page_182.txt
5151b8b4c9d160c96aa18d1d335ec75a
e19d3ffbc50a77cbbe0c6357357f2d12f681241d
2048 F20101206_AABZXT sullivan_j_Page_131.txt
5fa79df53cfa02caec32d51aa5dbe4db
30b3ce02bc77dbec81fd5ffedaaed035bf8a99d5
120371 F20101206_AABZBA sullivan_j_Page_176.jpg
4615192032bc84cd720e7dbc4ea54cef
669e8934eaafb6e3180deecae6b365fc60e5306b
F20101206_AABZAM sullivan_j_Page_184.tif
2a9adeb0e3c2aeb780a9f204651d4c80
6ce0498f8f319e5a6ab52c575edf62a7e34e6b6b
49676 F20101206_AABYVG sullivan_j_Page_072.jpg
21809aad08fdb8872b369e4ebe2fb101
de8ced4518e3747a7707614a11f265f742b59362
77818 F20101206_AABYUR sullivan_j_Page_086.jpg
1d6f33d4c774dc5ea6d8b855d0eaef85
83ff9550b41ff7a8e2cb52ca5119f506adfc46d8
2214 F20101206_AABZYJ sullivan_j_Page_186.txt
7e965719f7769b0dee4816b914a6a4b8
402343a76bef45589e609b8e236dc15d60de2570
1962 F20101206_AABZXU sullivan_j_Page_133.txt
6d787cd55c96aab4d09705de89bf8bc4
4d9ef695136c7222783208d2fd28bc2f008a87d8
24724 F20101206_AABZBB sullivan_j_Page_132.QC.jpg
ce90df785424e57e7f37977a635e204c
779a0340d51cbcf6e22e4d9b6e78adab18bc0c5a
470 F20101206_AABZAN sullivan_j_Page_068.txt
8a0437550994ce466ca1411af162901a
ed37c36c285de212744ebc96e94748cb56bad4ab
54161 F20101206_AABYVH sullivan_j_Page_039.pro
b6f9c5b90488f4570d03f1c31de6d8dd
9b934b5d92fe18307f66687229ccdb55eae2c86c
164676 F20101206_AABYUS sullivan_j_Page_172.jp2
5591dda94f024b1a2f6c4c1afb47b1e0
3c7c5761a34d475bee382578085486f633bbdbc3
2028 F20101206_AABZYK sullivan_j_Page_187.txt
e0a34a3a80380b03b4d63f9e54e598ac
25013818f053ed2541f16c02f7eef6e404c949ce
F20101206_AABZXV sullivan_j_Page_135.txt
4842886bcd9fb7ab1c9beb868ab01247
ba56d4abf22ddf4de8bbccae754331b2188a57e1
F20101206_AABZBC sullivan_j_Page_145.tif
90513c3b9ddde74d69093accf1234cc7
b5cb7876aa4520b65eea22fd2a1eff7831743a89
77409 F20101206_AABZAO sullivan_j_Page_032.jpg
48a7ee71344387098c73810e8a9d4129
eeb9891fb79fa200a7fa284b21a6959a9113189c
14515 F20101206_AABYVI sullivan_j_Page_117.pro
20074663f658daf4ecf4450d6be2c5ad
f26dd827dd545a0bf6758a4e99caf7cb5dc06c30
2135 F20101206_AABYUT sullivan_j_Page_026.txt
e7daaadd8612e9ed4cfbbb429b5da1ae
be816f3526d57462afb256714f12b55edff0e8c3
2106 F20101206_AABZXW sullivan_j_Page_139.txt
40ca4fbd038fb6ad65e1ce5a5670af28
a13e58c41223c5ceac2c4d7a896ff3cbbb9d7503
6285 F20101206_AABZBD sullivan_j_Page_151thm.jpg
9928629d3821dffa11009566e06ea01c
927658498de7ad45e41f18425c9e63e73669aad7
176021 F20101206_AABZAP sullivan_j_Page_154.jp2
82b05ac9eabe813f976c3ed823ed1356
8175680cd39e1aeb5cffe5018ed9bd4611c99114
33855 F20101206_AABYUU sullivan_j_Page_102.jpg
f41311838b6c0ec748a085c81dcb8904
1b854333c44985acf9f864b2222fa7c52053b887
16817 F20101206_AABZZA sullivan_j_Page_143.QC.jpg
910a56718a7869ccf755829f3640f55e
d15f89a06c60ac95b976c563ee0c21a8305574ec
2189 F20101206_AABZYL sullivan_j_Page_188.txt
dd90cc1a923aac58bf57f77842c70be7
1c2ac78d66439d75ac5c70ebc10b85601db02a31
F20101206_AABZXX sullivan_j_Page_142.txt
4b82e1fd44492b0038251846598294d7
3fbc612edf249f3bae149741538e578c0bb05b83
1364 F20101206_AABZBE sullivan_j_Page_114.txt
6bf80f7080c04c3a3dbdbee47557014b
b060536863b625be1fe92846ca35a445dc6bcd0d
40590 F20101206_AABZAQ sullivan_j_Page_070.jpg
38e091607bee91b40b854dfe0a4a5e83
16f75193da4fa5a61487986891887919afeb7b42
F20101206_AABYVJ sullivan_j_Page_007.tif
98b8d45ef4d39ec2f48fe9df90e30c10
faff19c3c4a9a2c6b93e20b135e7da4555f70015
17440 F20101206_AABYUV sullivan_j_Page_079.QC.jpg
8e698f189e333f27ad832ebcd2576b74
3fdb438b5dc3f24d37a3373b0b70dcf635c5d12a
25557 F20101206_AABZZB sullivan_j_Page_027.QC.jpg
761dbd1b56962c16f443b3cf3dc0596c
e8d40976fdf23cdecd401f49da084b68874bc68a
2346 F20101206_AABZYM sullivan_j_Page_071thm.jpg
bd78f1b8fdc9a9c31046a82dca51e298
854425072a36c39bda05278bb1bc4ec26cd57d82
1880 F20101206_AABZXY sullivan_j_Page_145.txt
0c31f90eb48f1605906c4cf87a5e3659
79b9e369a2ad92ae0c0353ae43108ca027607a8a
52983 F20101206_AABZBF sullivan_j_Page_115.jpg
8ccf29a815dc07896fe22411983720f3
8167bafbdb2d6d3fe560ffe2a78fca25f7960bea
F20101206_AABZAR sullivan_j_Page_032.tif
edd5eca45873413eb00d7b96134abecc
7941c1481019299fc286dbbad4e184587b284ad6
33838 F20101206_AABYVK sullivan_j_Page_127.pro
5b98f2d1952ae2f60a589bf58c28f5d3
3582b20d7cb029510f98a1b46337ca726569dd0a
2149 F20101206_AABYUW sullivan_j_Page_028.txt
090d978793e2f26cebaf3e6f49847b5f
3801c4c3e315763be6cd0774fdcce35d7d6c3d1e
18423 F20101206_AABZZC sullivan_j_Page_019.QC.jpg
99fe2942ea511d53cffe48a85e49c4db
181910162f089ef6f9ceb0413fbd1e6bc88baa8d
6337 F20101206_AABZYN sullivan_j_Page_091thm.jpg
fcd16d71304ce86d9a391df7ef5ce35e
bdc4eb5aa955e6fe3dc7cf5d17147e6fb1000390
1620 F20101206_AABZXZ sullivan_j_Page_147.txt
cdfcba5516ec51c433a9da4df8dd0d1c
bf85ba6c3b5eed6d889ab1986cd0d79cfac061e1
51381 F20101206_AABYWA sullivan_j_Page_017.pro
9d2fb9bab253fad00a7e0d256b6d7863
33094be87876bd1988d84558a617d8746b67d85c
89817 F20101206_AABZAS sullivan_j_Page_176.pro
d6e45a13df511c43e0c3c2eed60ef087
87ed24f979599414a3642c990950e6546fca479d
115236 F20101206_AABYVL sullivan_j_Page_052.jp2
0b7e016f785537000582dc2aaf2bbde7
66d46fbdeed6713f21755e042c4f5ded7ac0f003
51140 F20101206_AABYUX sullivan_j_Page_090.pro
909762817b66a3f94bfa2c9a11585fd6
e645eb7e5858f2c6ccae2ddfc488c07c880d63f9
24182 F20101206_AABZBG sullivan_j_Page_017.QC.jpg
6ee6a2e019bc924cd38cdce1023b3407
aa3f22a5de17b0cd015524ce7cb11ab811d8025f
2581 F20101206_AABZZD sullivan_j_Page_130thm.jpg
ebc5ab9454137b83333448373efe44c1
bf15a8b5a795047c4dacf1778b71746c72e0677c
6781 F20101206_AABZYO sullivan_j_Page_032thm.jpg
7ac822ef554500098f1b374b9b4074f0
bbc2fa1570b298d5dbbeb68a4bf6d25af1eff3cb
26025 F20101206_AABYWB sullivan_j_Page_047.QC.jpg
d77d47d6d75fc6cabf47eb54e2b7b4ce
15c80706c6e8f6846b3c6af1392856042b82c4bc
83908 F20101206_AABYVM sullivan_j_Page_159.pro
39afcfe6610a5724be4a28d39c048616
71a99ac8b63a51750d1d17881090f55ee5669c0b
40268 F20101206_AABYUY sullivan_j_Page_117.jpg
82283d23eb9f5c713ce274b7d25be2ee
4a580b89b68bc6aee258879f5d782ef281aa5394
14494 F20101206_AABZBH sullivan_j_Page_118.QC.jpg
59dc17ee8bc4d02e8d0402bc50b3df3c
6460a409f72c0763fa6b77eb798ae0a39eb96a0a
5089 F20101206_AABZZE sullivan_j_Page_075thm.jpg
a0663b2cf4e45ec042c1dbb556bf4302
b526b4aef0e4fe6e16a6243f1399218627dda49d
23623 F20101206_AABZYP sullivan_j_Page_043.QC.jpg
65093869081400aa1044ece2887a00d9
8bc19791dfd4bf74db3a5304b57e90c6540342c6
1050437 F20101206_AABYWC sullivan_j_Page_013.jp2
78a5f2782b3e303b084c1fccb645be48
dcbab68084148114242124f73affacaf96be7ed5
103101 F20101206_AABZAT sullivan_j_Page_083.jp2
fcb7e98e139f6b91238d443d473e7343
5745daf9ceda45a458e1fcde395ec36121e42796
16728 F20101206_AABYVN sullivan_j_Page_014.QC.jpg
3a8ddbc90e8a39c4a0cf63a76b71ff1a
bbe1d5db9b49d8d5fb78fe8a62c158b73f63eb77
1301 F20101206_AABYUZ sullivan_j_Page_074.txt
b77e62baa2151adc6ae715d3987bcd07
1cf26027202b64213a90ea91f2407be13cc1540d
23929 F20101206_AABZBI sullivan_j_Page_044.QC.jpg
d375e31a72ea9d670aa5596904156f9d
2793c53dd717aed039ede82899df7ed89e1e79b7
28683 F20101206_AABZZF sullivan_j_Page_180.QC.jpg
a3263b45b6496cd5909287f8d000b816
81108baaafb238499a166e8f0ea43d0e78974a9d
21479 F20101206_AABZYQ sullivan_j_Page_097.QC.jpg
be5dfd352a4f5363e4703b4d71b86b59
14a0a781fad7d7e34698e8fa618ee7d40ba17ead
3375 F20101206_AABYWD sullivan_j_Page_102thm.jpg
5579df2086e31c35aa77ebda522b5e2b
021dbe8a5d09aad2225b154b699295593ebf28eb
24249 F20101206_AABZAU sullivan_j_Page_123.pro
c0bf02bcaffb79bd875e152da976657d
c6705777d124a900d7cc78591b0f61258c4a42af
1138 F20101206_AABYVO sullivan_j_Page_141.txt
4309d9af070771c840ede0775a90b3f0
41560909762507d3d07156dac05b920221e8ca07
7447 F20101206_AABZBJ sullivan_j_Page_165thm.jpg
30d8612b6c7999e19df43ee9772d5549
6b8aaa894083bb259d8f5382d7170c72b28a4f55
30735 F20101206_AABZZG sullivan_j_Page_157.QC.jpg
cceb25eebd735b7335a7cd7bf1db828e
1271ccdec0466c2a7f6d10437b3def31c0f23e13
23649 F20101206_AABZYR sullivan_j_Page_058.QC.jpg
cade134429500004ba9c594419f4c66b
d34fbefcb2fc5aea3ccb3deb3b2ad6a431e4a398
6862 F20101206_AABYWE sullivan_j_Page_028thm.jpg
5608218146531d0569d732778dc23f6b
745fd94b395cdbdd58940bc7d9a6fcf947ba7909
25431 F20101206_AABZAV sullivan_j_Page_034.QC.jpg
38ab790a40122ace02395a690d2aef5f
a6664727ceb5ea160b6c74b61179e9a7af2ba5cc
F20101206_AABYVP sullivan_j_Page_111.tif
2b016f24c58281704e22103b089b3e35
806e9b86a0c9da4b4b340cfcf887a382d488800d
1051985 F20101206_AABZBK sullivan_j_Page_125.jp2
1db218b679591ee200208cf02c986d23
487242da953004855ba082a47145ca578bf577cd
15125 F20101206_AABZZH sullivan_j_Page_139.QC.jpg
45503d03fe576a89ebcc8bcbff9ed1af
048fba7a90b3d512eac7b25a26e147353890ccbc
7013 F20101206_AABZYS sullivan_j_Page_039thm.jpg
ae1d0449c9ab2773f1868882055523e4
b39ae53f7c0d502b87ed46d87218b82756d64d3a
163120 F20101206_AABYWF sullivan_j_Page_178.jp2
509254b6a057f7b3cf1b9964950a6147
07a7526627114a240734cd6342a536ee91cda2a1
F20101206_AABZAW sullivan_j_Page_057.tif
71c75d4217a506da5fd4cb1f01e74947
3643c241f48168a02cb012752f377b8d0f58151b
26441 F20101206_AABYVQ sullivan_j_Page_065.QC.jpg
99f9894d46e7a795a1b5e6e6474e3ba8
892cd10e28f610df96055025978e62ac144e28e1
9867 F20101206_AABZBL sullivan_j_Page_003.jpg
685be5b6a02d299a79abf06edac46844
f165323100414e6bd57c696d1050b962bdef0305
21810 F20101206_AABZZI sullivan_j_Page_145.QC.jpg
5e46b48df09932c26f06f14de97df97a
9d80d3eca1077005886b12e4bd46ebf03adef204
3616 F20101206_AABZYT sullivan_j_Page_013thm.jpg
71718b747fb8a44a57130642732c7921
fdc9b51eb8e97bcd601f96d75a3f623e2b2d9797
24548 F20101206_AABYWG sullivan_j_Page_062.QC.jpg
f8a74fd73be2a7958f4534453d2c9016
41593800f620fe3723102380a22707a701c8c297
73462 F20101206_AABZAX sullivan_j_Page_058.jpg
041fd65aa5893c5cdc95370306e29090
6b4b6e5c03c3c39b45aed24bdb262e130a1696bf
19946 F20101206_AABYVR sullivan_j_Page_069.jpg
e12f2da8498ec94717683e3996804463
d5c652e4d5c0ac56c63392e7dd732edd03d27ca5
F20101206_AABZCA sullivan_j_Page_169.tif
0469eba2af9354eaeb6ab5c3734f133b
bb7ff854dbc86dad677a9df3266946e19a4cb3f4
1335 F20101206_AABZBM sullivan_j_Page_003thm.jpg
ec86f96ba199f3140adf46169f0e22cf
126031089cfc798036c8c20a29050cf52c330ef1
6161 F20101206_AABZZJ sullivan_j_Page_059thm.jpg
a56308a03528e3b48e8ccf1975c3c364
ccb253d5c519e438ce96a5cb5e551539ce685631
22936 F20101206_AABZYU sullivan_j_Page_081.QC.jpg
d6618278148d10fd80eb5dba72a6feb8
054180e3cd45f7d54e2e9171792e4deb1bde3e03
2560 F20101206_AABYWH sullivan_j_Page_179.txt
ce63233a768656c25b1cb12ff5488494
7579a45e114f1f2248fcd32889be65eeb72ffbe4
4810 F20101206_AABZAY sullivan_j_Page_138thm.jpg
fd63101e230fc002f8d6f5ad57f82828
6304cfde48a910b4adcbd7e2ce937a91e880fa1d
24897 F20101206_AABYVS sullivan_j_Page_066.QC.jpg
4f264976791b433a5f512db92764a54e
c82de16885904ea998dbef13d16b1a9bccf0aac7
736 F20101206_AABZCB sullivan_j_Page_122.txt
17d8b71578dd501eac7e3723c7f31dfd
4169f726c2172f9436b5ebee06da4d393f508fd7
34957 F20101206_AABZBN sullivan_j_Page_108.jp2
7ab2ffb040acaf08d6d2f36bdb92acdc
d1560759c0bf329e1aa366f509a6489cd8c8b0ee
6535 F20101206_AABZZK sullivan_j_Page_171thm.jpg
377c94ae65f879981cfaedb62e7583b4
ef21d1031cf27a6fc2141148a6078f6db1b5e4ea
7015 F20101206_AABZYV sullivan_j_Page_086thm.jpg
37940fa9fbe7427a2bf9bdd10434b034
d8fbd3f54cf1441abb6ca4aa2c6a654e00146b7c
695 F20101206_AABYWI sullivan_j_Page_004.txt
f19d52e35443456f6cedd086f18b65d2
3a2f62b1137a862f00670178aeb7aff66df07ff6
72488 F20101206_AABZAZ sullivan_j_Page_044.jpg
1773073335131359e632b87d155127bf
86f1b90ce466c8678dbb7a699ff54275a5045ae9
4605 F20101206_AABYVT sullivan_j_Page_139thm.jpg
808280b2699526a12701bc1c9560b63d
82036607490a375e9499baf03060275e786f63b3
2174 F20101206_AABZCC sullivan_j_Page_086.txt
edfd5650ea8b60206b2660f7be9631a2
a058f9f59011427f0b47f2ebaec7edf3fedae937
112813 F20101206_AABZBO sullivan_j_Page_051.jp2
6cc35eda947ac8ba1a57b535cf897893
70c786045351e1134aacbef190f5d106ea4c790b
6931 F20101206_AABZZL sullivan_j_Page_152thm.jpg
7018ec841dd3af00d89c2b1c8f860cff
ef6c422cf0c45aab2d9896430049dc6b27b150f8
6347 F20101206_AABZYW sullivan_j_Page_054thm.jpg
910d6d44c1bf06335c0414bf8d0865cb
e394d238b8f57bb30caed76f4a8ced10afeb76b0
46828 F20101206_AABYWJ sullivan_j_Page_141.jpg
59ddbefe0e38169cfad17615ac41cefc
e0406cebb3b6c0cea3dd415c8f2b2da8f64299b4
2621 F20101206_AABYVU sullivan_j_Page_076thm.jpg
3e87c46b63a023a1523901c268662f28
90e16da0da7c911b8f2fb2bf8ef01ce5c2fdfb5e
70074 F20101206_AABZCD sullivan_j_Page_091.jpg
aa73819fb683a8abc4fd2c97b5a97ccc
83984d77f3ecf96795771e098b1c8bec7329e2ab
23416 F20101206_AABZBP sullivan_j_Page_105.jp2
0189e7db87a9e876cbbdd4ec782a63b3
c0bfe2fd27570fe44fabf9865db672741a3b6633
27661 F20101206_AABZYX sullivan_j_Page_181.QC.jpg
dcdcd9a60fdc0141df22e185755c76f9
2451e10817130566c217455e32cb0c37c95904d1
F20101206_AABYVV sullivan_j_Page_139.tif
7489177c1783be8622c06c9d4ff7c2cf
7944641030236954fe2a51b16dc8f4ba690dea32
23651 F20101206_AABZCE sullivan_j_Page_012.QC.jpg
f5c37829defcef337ae0cf56adb41df7
245111d772612ec446f73aebc4accbae234172f1
F20101206_AABZBQ sullivan_j_Page_016.pro
09a288d9e73d78083483dfc2b3dd8823
84f303dc441532c13f029f30585fa7c21b13da17
7380 F20101206_AABZZM sullivan_j_Page_155thm.jpg
7fde1f5c3359149bd8379f22ee416ead
25ff08dbe1981c1b9c1b9835ef74c58ecc609ed3
4450 F20101206_AABZYY sullivan_j_Page_103thm.jpg
0a501cab6fd319a1e133c0b8a7cc3971
a245cb46500196e563f34078bab08f3f78e23d7c
69398 F20101206_AABYWK sullivan_j_Page_171.pro
e7527f3c6474f39f67d753853c8f392a
bba65f369d57a0bd751287fad2603978f5e09474
F20101206_AABYVW sullivan_j_Page_044.tif
aa16bb61ad7074f1d7a1b52a26a92dfe
f52d23cee05591641865890ac04279ff5c3c57db
20115 F20101206_AABZCF sullivan_j_Page_110.QC.jpg
a1e2584a02b284230179420e65313adc
914aa18e62a77cbea76a64d4c9efa59cb9636eb9
8511 F20101206_AABZBR sullivan_j_Page_021.QC.jpg
b60ea265781880b791c16aa7ea6472e5
25e32fa3a1d746e411426f4bea1d59024a24d17e
3620 F20101206_AABZZN sullivan_j_Page_123thm.jpg
058be76c5e171bd1bf5c483bb185a6c1
eb09233356a3926e587e069a283bc17cd250910b
25973 F20101206_AABZYZ sullivan_j_Page_028.QC.jpg
06ad1e121a5ccf19c190d5e0e0cb8976
a9315b2c0774003839124bb41320702239689998
31339 F20101206_AABYWL sullivan_j_Page_077.pro
ba05b3d9803fb63ddab3f647982731ef
86680edae676879bc39d1180a1111ab5f268bc81
24747 F20101206_AABYVX sullivan_j_Page_032.QC.jpg
24e555a0adf2d1b998fbf5b9c204adff
b35ccd3431d167213abe26be2c73711ab473e8b9
F20101206_AABZCG sullivan_j_Page_123.tif
053ff0063b8262911e643712af032556
14005c1fe27e63bb3965db396533b331e68c0330
F20101206_AABYXA sullivan_j_Page_098.tif
b756537313a4564404c5df8ba141bfce
e25b8596788286a296920721c12613132a899c8f
3077 F20101206_AABZBS sullivan_j_Page_002.QC.jpg
aea733a2c96fc9453bac750f98dc0283
6e5315b8dd008601f48776a251334d11c8e20884
6679 F20101206_AABZZO sullivan_j_Page_146thm.jpg
c800296591187d5c10cd1264db00611f
0b711fc729c8e212b157c8c5ae4105643991af1d
8307 F20101206_AABYWM sullivan_j_Page_130.pro
cae99be78478e3422ee6713d821c3cb3
bfef258fead7b3cade311d9fb3ad2de5412e78d2
81286 F20101206_AABYVY sullivan_j_Page_065.jpg
5cf289df5d3f67ffb22485045f323b86
dc39162cd0496b7f710c3789addb7c49de993ed3
F20101206_AABZCH sullivan_j_Page_186.tif
7960626ffd5bbac931b21beaf2bb7a7f
a7be879df207a97d733eef4574424c05c8d4e908
2275 F20101206_AABYXB sullivan_j_Page_029.txt
34553b522374bf64e65b4023c18570e2
c16ed5e008cfe2c7b0135dbd851ffd7256ebd2ad
117606 F20101206_AABZBT sullivan_j_Page_089.jp2
73045b812d4f157589122343d07e97b9
06c00d596d9b80f22fd3f8c0b846093aead52c95
27912 F20101206_AABZZP sullivan_j_Page_185.QC.jpg
fc271de354852d7c30fb580b2c0e4e99
b123efecb484f2058b56e05acc6069abe3d30c1a
2069 F20101206_AABYWN sullivan_j_Page_030.txt
cf9be0ca76848fe8be54e38bbe6d2c79
0e76ba9ddd6355d2582e9ffbae52efc4af4b3f4e
127483 F20101206_AABYVZ sullivan_j_Page_088.jp2
e71bbf1640a5231e2a57e9c1e745ca64
253fe5b4f4ae3e3d94c4441517f4f85dab3e7be7
40644 F20101206_AABZCI sullivan_j_Page_147.pro
fae52762427335f8953979dd37720fb7
00177a7c148973a584acb1c2094ae0096c57a644
23933 F20101206_AABYXC sullivan_j_Page_134.QC.jpg
fbf5c4888b3550d9f084a6849d9453e4
f81d3ce911f1a874c7f15605b694ca981286d3ae
F20101206_AABZZQ sullivan_j_Page_066thm.jpg
0667033ecd147817453eadc7ac3ad366
10f2879d4b4d0f2d19e0745b5b77c6a15fdb46ca
F20101206_AABYWO sullivan_j_Page_168.tif
377c1cd914f8b32c921fb3c3b643df4f
c10b524f916177c7c3ff5c182df580fcc46b6dfe
6764 F20101206_AABZCJ sullivan_j_Page_053thm.jpg
ae78c8c5a48db4c85bfb972f5139cb6e
099685f7d774db0abda81d9aacbc8d101d80e9ad
6945 F20101206_AABYXD sullivan_j_Page_016thm.jpg
1848d9f307d3d206d6fb2cc3d787afaa
18fe1b459c43934e75ee9c4f269be2a0d8213212
F20101206_AABZBU sullivan_j_Page_009.txt
ba41c2c322533c0cf31476c7508e459c
0212158941aadb6d64da069ada5bbfbc89732867
9730 F20101206_AABZZR sullivan_j_Page_004.QC.jpg
2dbca960b191e0c5812cee9c8ec842ba
0b7823ff364bd2deac6c5859dd6ea5604131a221
F20101206_AABYWP sullivan_j_Page_053.tif
b5ddbe8e7872e70d61641a642a54ddde
e60aff7c4605cb03f9a7e2aca446959d28d2df46
46983 F20101206_AABZCK sullivan_j_Page_055.pro
46ad4affedaf59d4b7b8add1fcb7ab01
fdfa87b502e8a6bb397245d54f761911d8c0eda5
47721 F20101206_AABYXE sullivan_j_Page_128.jp2
14bbca6087747573be962696da88feb4
27265d8f9c3165258071cb84a2f4616f1d359e68
2046 F20101206_AABZBV sullivan_j_Page_134.txt
f10a900b859b27f286cc61377af5676a
8ff39469c941339328526579b8f86d83fe6bedd9
22768 F20101206_AABZZS sullivan_j_Page_187.QC.jpg
73c17776c76811f2b389ce08ac8e589f
3d983d1e1836bc3fa83386c15806d24f0504e6b3
82560 F20101206_AABYWQ sullivan_j_Page_098.jpg
29789cb2de35938f5fba4762ce8b38ec
c5155bbc7ee71505f3fc44f40d81743dd1b95987
F20101206_AABZCL sullivan_j_Page_122.tif
ed8ac2fa8e2668445592284336dd8a2a
2650ceb23c487f15f44336699225f02001e9c207
70964 F20101206_AABYXF sullivan_j_Page_131.jpg
6af095cccf6437bd4ba150ef8e4a9b2a
fa65048df2d3bda31ea01cfaaf502435b58208ab
1658 F20101206_AABZBW sullivan_j_Page_018.txt
6712ed6baca142738a9d583ce2b2ad25
d9a4da79871df5a1a0d1a479636f112482b87f26
5325 F20101206_AABZZT sullivan_j_Page_149thm.jpg
5433dc1680969cb7ab343ef19ab8dceb
fa9f52fcfe57eb610a07995f0e3138e59f201c04
75334 F20101206_AABYWR sullivan_j_Page_132.jpg
80ef6823646ffa2999766a0970f906f2
9cbee7705a19e69bfaef8c5ce8ecd565801afdf8
2109 F20101206_AABZDA sullivan_j_Page_017.txt
20b61787b1dcff6a253b7482dff00cba
09a828d721820e4d8e9980deb762e0e452ae8603
F20101206_AABZCM sullivan_j_Page_117.tif
c0f61c3821921b62c66693589c138aa8
c78ed06fae1b89c08d1f5afb2b0744d7011ccf49
101802 F20101206_AABYXG sullivan_j_Page_055.jp2
388d304d8877512d28b06e5bbca36d28
45704b49b1611838e232baae99a3b949a751ac9d
14962 F20101206_AABZBX sullivan_j_Page_106.QC.jpg
3e479451ce85da448a16b8b1cbd69e77
69c53c5d1ddd6098b19522537f9d5e8554e4a987
5886 F20101206_AABZZU sullivan_j_Page_110thm.jpg
ede4a9378b3518045e12a79eacc474da
375f52a386f1fc0e4e7566c3c379c3520ebb418a
69352 F20101206_AABYWS sullivan_j_Page_161.pro
2fd29a4cdf0956c281133b50a0f80137
2e3a8525125a1a0a049add60143bd87c0b7df3bc
49686 F20101206_AABZDB sullivan_j_Page_031.pro
024dee7f7a80e9d1a450188d0aef3caf
f01dbd3b0ae8c2fd3f42c9083871b14ed391da21
57225 F20101206_AABZCN sullivan_j_Page_064.pro
2ff7af2b6e2e49a1c86b076318278e2b
a1b0b1df578529f289078163428ffa75782c3152
6776 F20101206_AABYXH sullivan_j_Page_062thm.jpg
0bf81b9bdfce580982b2c3fe85217e11
55e85587d4c74f2c1e5fc4a6b27fb10d1a4a7673
105733 F20101206_AABZBY sullivan_j_Page_165.jpg
8ef7071cb3469a48fc1a98bc44fd2c92
506b33995de3333eef0855899ccf43e5e3f9218b
6700 F20101206_AABZZV sullivan_j_Page_063thm.jpg
e44b88020ff118e6b1c6bfb2cb51b200
33a47b33b68334b411e8bb5d027f2f5bd4e8e67d
F20101206_AABYWT sullivan_j_Page_124.tif
375047f3f9967cf11b3e5c4342dc91a3
a97a997f5d756d3aea42c24c8ead5401a2c139b2
F20101206_AABZDC sullivan_j_Page_029.tif
edb00c8d6d7a9626777861aa08ec1393
51dfdf461e3447c186a7c01af7d893059e7227f3
95481 F20101206_AABZCO sullivan_j_Page_171.jpg
647c8810dcc904e84fbbae11250d1f25
bfeb55186106cd6c9f35289217e869210a159171
3253 F20101206_AABYXI sullivan_j_Page_159.txt
505df4beb2011b825bd6ec5ec9d219fc
5e012b32bda42f1fec696817641b82cae1f40dae
3549 F20101206_AABZBZ sullivan_j_Page_177.txt
aa4622aa4a1436391be899163dec0518
8d99cd31395743a5c1f3cfe740fac834673ad536
30513 F20101206_AABZZW sullivan_j_Page_173.QC.jpg
369a56981c1ba2cab9d3903f3055d6a4
f2cebdd7f6dc5b55dcdd3a3ec53c246690c16e09
F20101206_AABYWU sullivan_j_Page_131.tif
9902857bd2306b277a2a7caabb192eca
62fabce74537c3fb63473ddbe7352a5ec6924e37
75534 F20101206_AABZDD sullivan_j_Page_182.jpg
a9e2d227250a33263b95cd5439e4f9e2
be8502e8c5a20e3f821efc7cd7df445c3b1c4fd4
55985 F20101206_AABZCP sullivan_j_Page_084.pro
a758ab4a0b45f3ac2cf93d8c19df8548
681649716acfa6cacd735f4777ebe772524ca201
73033 F20101206_AABYXJ sullivan_j_Page_031.jpg
843cb4e22ca1cc2d2fc03951ad672811
0bb6f49019c96a0afcd6f2fe5fe56f1a3426c8d2
5839 F20101206_AABZZX sullivan_j_Page_012thm.jpg
13861cf5d1f02012f5346a918be4cfd6
9b03d6ad0c41308bf6ef30670a67781293e1084b
24206 F20101206_AABYWV sullivan_j_Page_135.QC.jpg
5d91867a0f01ab3d72b235ed46916325
3fdf3b0e403c3bf9b763c693133c82499ee6b4f2
F20101206_AABZDE sullivan_j_Page_064.tif
f0827651b8612a5b6f47e0b25a98dadd
41279599fdc3ed22bfb93dc1459faed745c69a99
23452 F20101206_AABZCQ sullivan_j_Page_144.QC.jpg
fc1870359a7a0fbabeccfd5904f5dfbf
1609320e04eeadac74a9a8bd4d0d13190be7ddde
24028 F20101206_AABYXK sullivan_j_Page_072.pro
9bd135d57b5613b9b3164dc1eef5aeb0
34269d92bd326fcc7816f9ff730e0cd0121b5234
6943 F20101206_AABZZY sullivan_j_Page_056thm.jpg
b002fe5386a480f7aad2e5d1fb2adb98
7afc2d547cfb04156f04393abc86fee82285a487
116774 F20101206_AABYWW sullivan_j_Page_177.jpg
cd18fa1c54a5873c7fd61d1f54f7cfe6
5a01c7a8e810aaf909579aff597c80c71a9fdd86
F20101206_AABZDF sullivan_j_Page_106.tif
458ef2bd585478b14d2e9325cfbf8b29
5c1ffa765f1c7bd47e6bda567450c733dc725bdb
6926 F20101206_AABZCR sullivan_j_Page_179thm.jpg
2929af1dfabbc157ce6ddb0be95df22e
21b759835c03bfe8f5cfb85526afb3ab5183add0
22348 F20101206_AABZZZ sullivan_j_Page_055.QC.jpg
5c9ed3803d9df563e4fb9f615dc6c2ae
74b3d3304c0abc4d9ecb58d41eace8dd149aad64
6876 F20101206_AABYWX sullivan_j_Page_188thm.jpg
f09b6f472a2ac8e03b75e5fa85b1fccd
32e40587701b05c8f8cc95dcb2732a4ea9eb1250
2713 F20101206_AABZDG sullivan_j_Page_171.txt
a76852f81e5bfa0f7e6f53cdd0a6e0c6
d26d987fd29bffe5c5a218a4267ce4977a8d9998
49503 F20101206_AABYYA sullivan_j_Page_103.jpg
2ac4e3bfa0ded9325e61b2e7dd76c6ff
87fcdb991ae007f3e1d9150b3cde77c04d2627ef
6675 F20101206_AABZCS sullivan_j_Page_043thm.jpg
968e15e302f0a34cfe539a3eb705a4b3
1dc6f79349bc09d48397d220b9a01b509fe8753a
27901 F20101206_AABYXL sullivan_j_Page_162.QC.jpg
95e4d4effa9aaf3ab59d97513f13f4ce
f52c242099e554297a979410f556c83c84ae8ffa
F20101206_AABYWY sullivan_j_Page_101.tif
000862a4920b63a1f475c561eed6da3e
23bb2d207ec4f3c2857b9bcc5d7a5eef75f3f0b7
F20101206_AABZDH sullivan_j_Page_091.tif
2573e0eb63d843ff34ffca74fb1c52bc
f94b56c5255a58cee002ccca216bfcb09b1be201
6312 F20101206_AABYYB sullivan_j_Page_020thm.jpg
8a83a3f2a673caafa51d60357e534e0b
a61c007c1549cbbcedc46f73f2021102f005628b
1890 F20101206_AABZCT sullivan_j_Page_059.txt
f31272426ff900ed6a885b70198d0ece
628c4b2118e589cc81c12baa01cb4a762ea2e776
115687 F20101206_AABYXM sullivan_j_Page_027.jp2
3145a7e6d078d149670d213010ae90bd
162b2638f4d7c731c60d44d9f4bead9fe1062dac
2953 F20101206_AABYWZ sullivan_j_Page_167.txt
ad4d14d80f3585b833986847c0f391e9
63f89a0d2041154dfd7d1f10acf9544828faf650
68846 F20101206_AABZDI sullivan_j_Page_015.jpg
6d8fb700c6c01e6cb41cd084dd8aee82
f7564fa3bf7676645e2ca2ec999d551b911f517a
112437 F20101206_AABYYC sullivan_j_Page_159.jpg
9fc2c67da5a4f84ffc6f185f2c7ee76e
775c4b9a4c8e406109647c3bf08ef2d30aa98512
21566 F20101206_AABZCU sullivan_j_Page_020.QC.jpg
4b5f96cb2b51cd4e84b18ffb82374078
e6ff3ceda856c5f6a605f7fd8219da60549bd429
15789 F20101206_AABYXN sullivan_j_Page_126.QC.jpg
e6b41f6c0232de09e648e996906a4e92
f0158459e1176f3f09744c4b5c2fa91c55e442bb
F20101206_AABZDJ sullivan_j_Page_041.tif
71cafb9881a347c2cbd3c2ed3430abcb
3dced2731e3e5a2bc5e8ecdda57e86eb0297caba
25840 F20101206_AABYYD sullivan_j_Page_089.QC.jpg
0c3272eca1ad4171c401fc2f6ddc8172
e631106cd2fc4e36707bd57416f9fb0cc6090696
113849 F20101206_AABYXO sullivan_j_Page_034.jp2
7a47e1a188ed59f06a3c92a8281e7688
d8cc202c7154d47d641d533671f5511fe03cbd7c
648 F20101206_AABZDK sullivan_j_Page_115.txt
cbe954e97c4e2be107410f988e84407e
ca2bc21f09a87f1040c38ffe84186425317bfea8
46899 F20101206_AABYYE sullivan_j_Page_081.pro
293ced45b29af058b64f09e4183c70f6
f12272a81089238b371b42c54f40f21c21a2a235
F20101206_AABZCV sullivan_j_Page_040.txt
8be478afa6498784f7f752739ccf07ce
9bc6d79e30622d27404cc8c6d2829d1132fde463
52692 F20101206_AABYXP sullivan_j_Page_038.pro
f7cab0aed9ed2cecbca3d6511c891e8f
2cb04d67e46c26bfb9bcb219bd178e230ecfae0a
7483 F20101206_AABZDL sullivan_j_Page_068.pro
0c51f1ec261a2e49d17cc7a804ed6ef1
9694e713bede95db912b1c174a9f0b39cb081a2b
78222 F20101206_AABYYF sullivan_j_Page_047.jpg
497c1cfc791cefecc9f51bdd703a9fb3
853463bf5e29199e9a5dd60d653def142d360879
F20101206_AABZCW sullivan_j_Page_070.tif
c8e0baff13ea8839f0d4e00165dae560
a2a4019059ea3d358e9d2a2fd1c6149becd96909
5995 F20101206_AABYXQ sullivan_j_Page_083thm.jpg
de464d189b21e24504c6cd0ddc1d3d70
8c079cf2bdffab1b77acd5316dc11a7c412d95f0
F20101206_AABZDM sullivan_j_Page_176.tif
945264e2ea295e35a0c307d21a7d94ae
673b1977cc85adcbae0e5767498b4ff81f1976cd
115430 F20101206_AABYYG sullivan_j_Page_022.jp2
ffc703931d86a2308997b9b685f540f2
cc2b33275bf54bde06b17f9278d86d9cc5d35d43
70198 F20101206_AABZCX sullivan_j_Page_081.jpg
aa04fc94ffa647dd8c9c47bcedf5fd9f
4720bcc6437a2e147038b4ccd3f2ff771ea92583
F20101206_AABYXR sullivan_j_Page_188.tif
808ded8a738423966406f1fd4d4325b8
648fb732c5a8744cb51d4e5728f51ff4139c66c8
7055 F20101206_AABZEA sullivan_j_Page_095thm.jpg
574402c126b355feba64ca85b739b895
3d2ce31cc904a990a6f1060b31ae4eb9b69a78dc
F20101206_AABZDN sullivan_j_Page_161.tif
7c82b68b64f9be7b00bf9d6b49472e82
01d3bf9693a6b7899930c8459c97168665f65681
74028 F20101206_AABYYH sullivan_j_Page_149.jpg
00e225e4a5d4624466b34fedea0d6fda
911342b4b3bc8257cc6c05e407d5cfd69d9f4ccb
33449 F20101206_AABZCY sullivan_j_Page_008.QC.jpg
7aa715ce753ba7e96daf09b8699d643a
912df2660f05517509fa59101757d1223ef9af34
118970 F20101206_AABYXS sullivan_j_Page_086.jp2
c76f1dfe23c70f36a215151b6683b192
996b7ba32b6ebc83f4b2feb8dc493b5ae4c65abe
72940 F20101206_AABZEB sullivan_j_Page_114.jp2
f7ed7bc499c5cc8a821f707aa4debb84
74863749441279c8e93a70c375c037a848996cef
55713 F20101206_AABZDO sullivan_j_Page_143.jpg
32a783fc89c9e9669dc3170b8928667b
ab0dbdc7bf0fc039252f70f369f666c5164e3d30
28493 F20101206_AABYYI sullivan_j_Page_165.QC.jpg
3cae54ea8f95a94f680c9326a2e35fdc
8b4d92560580664206860f41d0258fdbf55bc0e8
54248 F20101206_AABZCZ sullivan_j_Page_026.pro
e89f44d5752d6c00b32b0524d4089965
ae3bc00c1a3e76198bf2f0b288d79bdab17e9169
31162 F20101206_AABYXT sullivan_j_Page_154.QC.jpg
3a3fd3e2604e185090f6cfc39fa414b6
bc403a4f1d0a3948dc2f7ae9d690c1c08594bdf9
6111 F20101206_AABZEC sullivan_j_Page_015thm.jpg
7f69f07c518e400f755117fd7dbbee31
7a5f4f9cdf80efe3b7f47f121f7cda78cebd3fde
1331 F20101206_AABZDP sullivan_j_Page_002thm.jpg
0ded6a9e3453ba6af93d52e3f180cc2a
ed8be2fa029a1baca542e8e2fdbda8f77eb855bd
55047 F20101206_AABYYJ sullivan_j_Page_188.pro
d8a84152c5dff0b3912bfb61b08d19c5
e9ac456555f82436d4f9ee0d70cc6bfc88549f9c
113109 F20101206_AABYXU sullivan_j_Page_006.jpg
380dfda506a8e94c086cd81b17171106
c0a9ab041b0d9e0b57d08c32e79f7b316809ef5a
F20101206_AABZED sullivan_j_Page_178.tif
969db2cf6f4739a2603ad280893c23b8
6c121a37561517de42e8682d9d71c36c0fb8b3f0
38231 F20101206_AABZDQ sullivan_j_Page_119.jpg
f161a85b3958970359d425438e1e79ca
413e743e9047574f1f11af5769e55ddf2183e3f9
14585 F20101206_AABYYK sullivan_j_Page_103.QC.jpg
6f78f6569c2c7e236fa65e7b856d969f
23b749d1326a124a2dfe56de5fa0e6056e28ca25
50554 F20101206_AABYXV sullivan_j_Page_043.pro
ab3cb40632baf1eea361861e1394b6bd
1c98f57edce0528d9405a4f198c8910956d2a589
171178 F20101206_AABZEE sullivan_j_Page_170.jp2
25560b086cb9863fad020879e71481b7
7d4ea150586982fc5b5ca41987cfbb4848d9e099
114393 F20101206_AABZDR sullivan_j_Page_092.jp2
57309b707398d8d5a5d97d1bbf7814e4
4eefcba7436fe0fd3d1d3efd75b464128caea92f
163733 F20101206_AABYYL sullivan_j_Page_174.jp2
1bbde9ce36c5c1188a280105390868c0
bf6e2b3e4689de95e53a82ffa9e2d774d105ed72
F20101206_AABYXW sullivan_j_Page_082.txt
14c8a8d10aafc406297251058bef1ed8
65e6d9692996dbfcfbc9a690e70c336880fa72f2
F20101206_AABZEF sullivan_j_Page_155.tif
d2f8312f131f6e58a9f848f27f368385
4edf38457f335730fd0962510c050baae64d4b73
F20101206_AABYZA sullivan_j_Page_034.tif
5703f8edc39172f1949264945826b5d6
f313472217f17ea1a96b3701b31c1044c408ba68
134551 F20101206_AABZDS sullivan_j_Page_163.jp2
bf4f640204eb3c41a69acd4166823f50
2cfab8d65ed771ac91fb08fe50c9adef7100b663
6854 F20101206_AABYXX sullivan_j_Page_036thm.jpg
608eaf6f381b55e7991c9695c0ba8707
08847b59c798e9669d54dc6a0973f96b0be59ad4
76233 F20101206_AABZEG sullivan_j_Page_042.jpg
60b37a682d42da68ea7321cc8f67bd79
767fb8554cf804209cec28b121133b5fdfa92ceb
1981 F20101206_AABYZB sullivan_j_Page_148.txt
7b2509539b9b137149068d468ff3bfae
39dd2418695c1d172c6a2b1bc97a47425bba768b
59615 F20101206_AABZDT sullivan_j_Page_018.jpg
876471eaea84bcddcab806ca1a9a0546
76aa74a223a7b1947c172c6007c8b13a350f5a73
7106 F20101206_AABYYM sullivan_j_Page_065thm.jpg
c683340108b75a1093cd81152ec12191
f94cdee118bde20f96110c3ac4de913ad5e119a5
F20101206_AABYXY sullivan_j_Page_021.tif
1f013908e165fba1477bb33f26c227a0
c58f3f918c82464643720a3e08fef7b607acd49c
84911 F20101206_AABZEH sullivan_j_Page_157.pro
9d65619638a4e1b10dc136a3269d897a
c231d54b79785205e867e8d6201f2a71eb99c0ba
4864 F20101206_AABYZC sullivan_j_Page_127thm.jpg
64f32b0b305fa18e311c3ca886b0487d
f748ae9a4152eb1edbdd5a105ff1c9442a37fe30
23767 F20101206_AABZDU sullivan_j_Page_035.QC.jpg
be58788be4898eab87deee2e89259188
2f37d39b03c54668b21bcc8828077ee073302461
6937 F20101206_AABYYN sullivan_j_Page_047thm.jpg
45a0b806dad35b5b7bd50054f966d19b
5ba18d8c00fab850d8ee53543ac4c2a99b7ff20a
F20101206_AABYXZ sullivan_j_Page_086.tif
b91900cbd6c32e6f610a0734f2c6507e
c206249dd0c14c8b4d531e3d7da49fc9feaee2d5
F20101206_AABZEI sullivan_j_Page_028.tif
b54c17022a44db82d90155f0a9fb49cc
ad8e0eecf1708f997941cd23a84edefe9566eb5a
F20101206_AABYZD sullivan_j_Page_102.tif
14c9fd28c99d6b44364f44cad48ca65a
490aed840f4c04d1b67b291e3d4af1afe4265358
70292 F20101206_AABZDV sullivan_j_Page_109.jpg
55d834780679dfecfb50a38704fa0ad9
3a721401beb8f6cb991425d938c2f8bfc69617cb
756 F20101206_AABYYO sullivan_j_Page_129.txt
0485210aa329c33eda06620f80a31027
1344bfe3f49eb43efb11b95707908153051139d3
85434 F20101206_AABZEJ sullivan_j_Page_005.pro
ae6c87a9881f0d55b5f2c587b01c98fa
629ae747b3281f20b16aaf9df5ff9135b76632e0
7673 F20101206_AABYZE sullivan_j_Page_180thm.jpg
cd47736a93f83fdab1e623a3e0fc6e08
71444bf17b3dd19f5235b83ac877c95a2b985c33
1652 F20101206_AABYYP sullivan_j_Page_125.txt
3f8f222554cc83239d47ea7dcd7912d2
7bc4316e9ad20d5a42b5a667a345e856983033d8
114727 F20101206_AABZEK sullivan_j_Page_170.jpg
7954b43a7225d3ffc157c77528c3cf7a
8139a01acf3d14c94cbd9ea1ef5c2411cb27b9a7
76957 F20101206_AABYZF sullivan_j_Page_022.jpg
7e8aa24731b8b9b6a4176c3d77b26685
6a1e6eaac386e129c585c4d7c783610ebe202518
6551 F20101206_AABZDW sullivan_j_Page_051thm.jpg
e1d3afb02d5cbe33b015f6415a76d3c2
5c6c7afc37cdebb9ad831bad7f9b6dd46008d2c7
6086 F20101206_AABYYQ sullivan_j_Page_057thm.jpg
0510f882b6c4943a88282fd4345ad0bc
c32a39b7a771b358d51c2145782fa9f30968717d
3909 F20101206_AABZEL sullivan_j_Page_150.QC.jpg
27f60ce36cd37ccb41240f9955705cb6
5d8e061fc4120d9861f2b5a1c42568f9464a8774
44692 F20101206_AABZDX sullivan_j_Page_080.jp2
ce10f59b3aa047b373c43e5cab848e26
4905848ce4bd68e97d328dac6813341900dd4243
6874 F20101206_AABYYR sullivan_j_Page_132thm.jpg
60c7368b3dd4a50b658ddb21b3d4f978
a173ac414f7af66332b247589efbad7bdac51ebd
5247 F20101206_AABZFA sullivan_j_Page_005thm.jpg
0fbabc359990bc917392fe386b0d4950
7f42133d4fec6235e62b6a1bb7e39ac35019138b
F20101206_AABZEM sullivan_j_Page_078.tif
27ab5d25a08d13f9c1730d772733a504
5fe68c24295de48b408185085d39da79d77dd318
F20101206_AABYZG sullivan_j_Page_183.tif
82d884d0255eb949cc7b5fbce7291bb3
583b052161304f28a3d2dcfdea32361e398aa477
119283 F20101206_AABZDY sullivan_j_Page_023.jp2
5847baa27a14cd7e3641503e3465301d
2bad3e7dc0d64692435f9123ba8319d7856ff976
71333 F20101206_AABYYS sullivan_j_Page_059.jpg
8034de966dd1f3ec75b57405824c01ee
7dd8ffe455ec40ca075b16df9e3fa11de56fd920
48818 F20101206_AABZFB sullivan_j_Page_058.pro
c5d6c48638c3c0481bfed0a5d41f13de
0edce266bdff5624f7426b9a5a6073c0d3c930a1
48138 F20101206_AABZEN sullivan_j_Page_131.pro
ee10077606d9ad1495327713c0168765
3bcabee46d7ac904e0a0ce9fc7aae025699446b9
158635 F20101206_AABYZH sullivan_j_Page_180.jp2
c837b2fbe06db08e0a3ebef5cdcdde14
1472f495e5eefc5c47beadc43bb9c594e923388d
23034 F20101206_AABZDZ sullivan_j_Page_061.QC.jpg
ebfb700b0a068e5fd7257cd3678ad93d
7cf2e7c85c1ef1876e1686ebb385644f85ec1b1e
F20101206_AABYYT sullivan_j_Page_068.tif
eda9dfd1e2d610b5f4c499b5fea59a59
db1434cd2d2543f17beba9c68b9f5fd778a72039
102031 F20101206_AABZFC sullivan_j_Page_060.jp2
f51f6a8120b261489d148dbb637984ee
6637717eaa958e6787a4b98c89ae7db778b5f2e6
2561 F20101206_AABZEO sullivan_j_Page_184thm.jpg
c0d6ef06c071e80cae9e49e29190e28e
66fda893715207699a6294d4a044264436d0758d
F20101206_AABYZI sullivan_j_Page_017.tif
c7785c804eb82f0aa9b409b3794fe5d7
42f660e49d107670fe757a350ed55063ff59001d
78714 F20101206_AABYYU sullivan_j_Page_087.jpg
ec1377538df98f2330634410a4046e13
fd2da55ee51c79bee7487d2f0cfa666813c581eb
6774 F20101206_AABZFD sullivan_j_Page_034thm.jpg
acd780ffe436a7ab62a1fd1be2ce1be0
aa3c4cba4804b3cc3f0a18cf14246eeb199ce189
36402 F20101206_AABZEP sullivan_j_Page_073.jpg
50cb492b11f5fb303947c9e02068c3c6
bc551ace08010d64fb12d38075f473e49a50d419
F20101206_AABYZJ sullivan_j_Page_079.tif
61b5ec435fe0a691c40a30642deb746a
f650dd0a1f5953e053c598653c1fc40d662c310a
F20101206_AABYYV sullivan_j_Page_031thm.jpg
4ce782f6273d0d77bf04671612940310
8e0e9d589c27ac00ccd1f726feac2884f8c928a9
24475 F20101206_AABZFE sullivan_j_Page_094.QC.jpg
e68c130cf8f28d07e9ecfc195ae43223
74651ca7a2e7a4a8361c1f19a60b6a569c40a888
115968 F20101206_AABZEQ sullivan_j_Page_112.jp2
acc42fd723735a7b9e20ecd3810a63da
4ae46769f71b7c3f5538d09656d8d01164c07989
23555 F20101206_AABYZK sullivan_j_Page_063.QC.jpg
3f8a956b2f7e5f810a0a3515d0add75c
0d086ece3a03baa4d0aabf9533629eadcae4f0aa
4967 F20101206_AABYYW sullivan_j_Page_078thm.jpg
cd0c07914e90ea0c4b5f159e60a74a80
9be929c3288cd3c2beeaf2aaca053622d4c701d3
374217 F20101206_AABZFF sullivan_j_Page_119.jp2
c0cb7a3b7da2fe35ab2bef057afcce17
fd1c12a84547c77e1369d303fe8ac8c517d64025
2365 F20101206_AABZER sullivan_j_Page_010.txt
d58a8b366f7c38c39172274fc41f19bf
4d909804685175ea8a02022960b88c4bdb72a0f1
50263 F20101206_AABYZL sullivan_j_Page_137.jpg
cf7768559e1d3d0f9d687c4da8ec43d2
1e08b0c2746877bf0312e968caec6a1e383c12fb
38388 F20101206_AABYYX sullivan_j_Page_183.jpg
342f17753c3de8a50c2b2684990f5bf3
f565637df287faa2282101dc2fe8ed05515aa032
F20101206_AABZFG sullivan_j_Page_174thm.jpg
5cc9c1ff276cf7a18ee48fdbb93f69e3
5770e1774bcf4587713f8103f04a84c9e8e90a6f
1051968 F20101206_AABZES sullivan_j_Page_006.jp2
b9f225718ea087204a485c05bb2af615
bf797b8f50e959ac3c36fab4c16967a38ed1baa0
6487 F20101206_AABYZM sullivan_j_Page_085thm.jpg
265fe1c2e5868ba91d98fbe26c73c7b2
3c0da99bb2778c13faadb6539b66e51c7c12c2b3
25263 F20101206_AABYYY sullivan_j_Page_050.QC.jpg
3083ba32e1fb75d0e387d83e26623462
9227322d27c8910250913392db0119c706fd4635
3124 F20101206_AABZFH sullivan_j_Page_180.txt
a96082b0e37662c7f1fde81dfeb443ce
fe53a64c259135d33af739e6a04e94d0a564edec
1051981 F20101206_AABZET sullivan_j_Page_158.jp2
22aa9d7d282746621f55048e2056503a
d6c1d779b6d310f0106915bcb3c976048cd399a8
3667 F20101206_AABYYZ sullivan_j_Page_073thm.jpg
0471b7ac295aad3aaf554e6cf50c0650
1cdcd9af62354ecd09cf3696dbd39ac6d0126851
59306 F20101206_AABZFI sullivan_j_Page_147.jpg
5b7f16addd2bc3cf2e66dc1bfd6c9d24
e48153069f1f07eef2561ab7f3e447b952d85e95
6042 F20101206_AABZEU sullivan_j_Page_097thm.jpg
645e9095bf4742d6e69653e8fda9fd6a
96f81ff602e9a90f1d90f0964d2ebe9c205f317c
1963 F20101206_AABYZN sullivan_j_Page_015.txt
30ae4a486771f0a998bb3e3f87cc1e02
272bfd569a6d98b5484b59e6ab1608ce09bb59ae
103613 F20101206_AABZFJ sullivan_j_Page_015.jp2
1e4da708330e4f317c0ede13405161f9
6706df1d3d21eaa8b5e78c8fef9be05db5805f3b
140970 F20101206_AABZEV sullivan_j_Page_161.jp2
bf482b8f54a6edfc33f77a826c9ea916
75e69c477b1471d983b9ada63cb891f2d78a5f7a
161005 F20101206_AABYZO sullivan_j_Page_155.jp2
52a21297c6283bd48e8007219c9f741e
09fcf55ff528ec3166864b5e9db9702acbafb0e4
8246 F20101206_AABZFK sullivan_j_Page_076.QC.jpg
e0c2d4645852fcf6b4f9e5dc7d33a427
72a784ff7a18ad5e093a1e6cfa2d663541b893ba
1525 F20101206_AABZEW sullivan_j_Page_014.txt
2a471d44a119b3eb57d8a318149fbdaa
58e53fbd83ae629ffd21fb936dac2b6ea4f894ad
113183 F20101206_AABYZP sullivan_j_Page_173.jpg
15b1084f767c8b03d21500074550212a
85cbc4ccca8b5c6145edb3f63a644ec03a930660
4042 F20101206_AABZFL sullivan_j_Page_070thm.jpg
a7142dd7e431f136a5c5a7e3a1cc37ed
008430e148cf2ebceb9aec6bc8164921dfdddc37
F20101206_AABYZQ sullivan_j_Page_093.tif
a46ac1c87824920aaec6a73a8cbdd13f
65c45b5abad2904d8ddad54053f228bf72ed2086
54505 F20101206_AABZGA sullivan_j_Page_028.pro
5138b37bed2fe87ffa7fe2a6a5e25916
d47afe56490dd51a233a42062c09f859ff434554
22631 F20101206_AABZFM sullivan_j_Page_105.jpg
2eef20ab9ef1c0b4c5af664de00f9d81
39725fc300e8ecbc673f8e08a050f24b60ab259c
F20101206_AABZEX sullivan_j_Page_136.tif
e977b817e7fba5a56f70689df66f7b07
3ad30e86e731259694c0c7c3c5bf6cf2dfa05605
82930 F20101206_AABYZR sullivan_j_Page_172.pro
55ee65e2db8d760afead12fe4a1be5ba
4c6ac0f5a92bb468eebb498ba9dd250e7cd1881e
F20101206_AABZGB sullivan_j_Page_027.tif
d5d16919bbd5bcc3309e6850a2bc94ac
988c3304bf5ca14648c56f03a369407ede2b1dd6
75453 F20101206_AABZFN sullivan_j_Page_030.jpg
96e3af7b44156c7d5e8d2381f3986c7e
133046824657c4f584d60df472793600c155d91a
115775 F20101206_AABZEY sullivan_j_Page_056.jp2
bf5aa8959c4de58c769a049b2a1d2957
45b9b10892cb6775abcc50fc7b1eb68b398cfa3f
7394 F20101206_AABYZS sullivan_j_Page_167thm.jpg
443e3e685a085c5d17e84a2fc70e5587
8046c8203703a2ac4f8e41535fae6b2ae76dc484
70497 F20101206_AABZGC sullivan_j_Page_083.jpg
7bc0be0cd3f76e35c56e3601e6113177
294c1e8a93a400c088a56daf018b65ab15c34f5a
F20101206_AABZFO sullivan_j_Page_171.tif
303b3b44abdf4b463c0d0048e1effa73
a9aa9efd1c75112ee1a60bd77f42b4c8e6fd79ae
24215 F20101206_AABZEZ sullivan_j_Page_033.QC.jpg
0c0ba7570e654065c75c9aaad5ac52b6
41fd92de5924e3f5ccfb0f58b81cd8f836bf10f6
25059 F20101206_AABYZT sullivan_j_Page_038.QC.jpg
22cfb604f560f233e6ff1310819d66e0
d7c3fffcf27d192b9415ea434e21b520c971658f
F20101206_AABZFP sullivan_j_Page_067thm.jpg
607df6193ae9014859b26bf53e8c9e2c
9b7c0fa06c1addfa1b88a62f3f126cb7a69dea2b
2051 F20101206_AABYZU sullivan_j_Page_093.txt
88fede5068993c13ecc33eee2e0902fd
37c44132232b977cb8eaa54802743311f2e32c3c
35432 F20101206_AABZGD sullivan_j_Page_125.pro
75ef0234753337f886c3aa20038d438a
444c071fc66db2e0b1e587176764d9d3c7b2a28a
1704 F20101206_AABZFQ sullivan_j_Page_137.txt
1d1c07fb0d959b11deccde23c771d4e7
c1fb325b8528c325b1975bd8dfb8711f5e12df73
562717 F20101206_AABYZV sullivan_j_Page_115.jp2
08a1cde91b1d5dca382c974904208016
9607c3946e1aa384139a2f78be1a454b8210d1ac
81473 F20101206_AABZGE sullivan_j_Page_155.pro
b02636eb4b19d94d667be1de8c970eef
738e2da8feb63beed8f28a18a24796e29ab43719
113510 F20101206_AABZFR sullivan_j_Page_030.jp2
585f0335d32c83544c869c55938aa83a
58ab028876db9c1e564e233e18e9e6de2a157a3e
6392 F20101206_AABYZW sullivan_j_Page_022thm.jpg
9fbe3ef32bd7b498fb35b24bec69f3a6
df4e960ad546a60b91558af3bc79caaa50e6bc4e
31111 F20101206_AABZGF sullivan_j_Page_137.pro
a175b8ebf0e407d86dc7a31773a8ed65
5288cd78e6f6d6dc1f87ba653769aa4228601cf2
7822 F20101206_AABZFS sullivan_j_Page_008thm.jpg
f6c47be301e945bd32171a5178321ef9
9ae7afd483d543369c5368fcf9130ab705854ac4
F20101206_AABYZX sullivan_j_Page_018.tif
2c0755bfbec6ffda419400eef3a9659d
7050639218e56ed7e13ad1be29468ca0d2302a51
88 F20101206_AABZGG sullivan_j_Page_003.txt
f4c85f385a0227cee1d052839879766d
e3394c7e4687c4bfb9939b04e79ae2adc0210b0d
179107 F20101206_AABZFT sullivan_j_Page_177.jp2
276948a22618430e1aa65fdfd1a55829
8e5a2911cd49798441630ba982ddea22a80d622c
51694 F20101206_AABYZY sullivan_j_Page_149.pro
d8979494d670a11684a2fe5c900f99db
e81e7626be67ce613debf57c140bd22a917e8cab
F20101206_AABZGH sullivan_j_Page_009.tif
32c15f20674153ef00a5d4b31cd18dca
3c31c992674f169a120e912eca95fdb4c4ac2515
13883 F20101206_AABZFU sullivan_j_Page_120.QC.jpg
d94eaac9a072a517ea7da5c6d282773c
4835ce8c6016fbbcd48285bcba998e74b62381ec
9346 F20101206_AABYZZ sullivan_j_Page_136.QC.jpg
c6379daddb5cdab27b203d9e768532ea
a9096dc461d271819a1422c09619635fb7a64fc1
48785 F20101206_AABZGI sullivan_j_Page_111.pro
0ca21476cc1fb3ab7173361edb9a7d3f
f91173698514d6775b1988b947ee4e50bf749d5c
112481 F20101206_AABZFV sullivan_j_Page_085.jp2
21e96f0261a251bfe85f66cc46e9637f
b8b74de760c738d8337d2c4caf1b25f4fbb0826d
7406 F20101206_AABZGJ sullivan_j_Page_159thm.jpg
3132d2020dca52df965f011caa2af244
249b2ed5a5db87a547c5ce13d2e2391b91ab7a0d
5042 F20101206_AABZFW sullivan_j_Page_071.pro
e0b368ad252243f781567a094029da0a
11ae37a223a101c939b573910babb4a898b8e162
7097 F20101206_AABZGK sullivan_j_Page_105.pro
d221741d75a95469067f67df5492ad12
bd2a83ad01338d4cfdb0db6abd704bd8ed022b38
884 F20101206_AABZFX sullivan_j_Page_003.pro
f6dabfb3f8f3ba4204b14583f09f6bba
4c9c46bb950d6408cc7ba9e4a2b55f7978775030
74343 F20101206_AABZGL sullivan_j_Page_046.jpg
5fe305e2935921207a34ed721cf071c1
4c50811b9cd779e74b65da6f325c7185e730bb72
F20101206_AABZHA sullivan_j_Page_186.jp2
3d62cd7045954db7c2b8565ddb274c02
0450748c3f5d01d526e8b4a61352e386efbef60d
F20101206_AABZGM sullivan_j_Page_125.tif
0641429ac3c47a5aa6811c002343e7d9
0e8802e8c3d8a11d8a1327ce4b1968bf210a922d
17463 F20101206_AABZFY sullivan_j_Page_124.QC.jpg
db44b4848213d4a892a208cfc0ca2c2c
97be0fefe5568fae1ddfceb0f41016ceb15c5ddf
52790 F20101206_AABZHB sullivan_j_Page_106.jpg
7274e37c9820e724c060fb8656e13b3d
776385af63d1e80d5d58652bda6b2a928fbc4715
33226 F20101206_AABZGN sullivan_j_Page_126.pro
4db21ffa5faec026af9972140642f964
e877172663f453683ae522bb58b2c1e1d88f1668
6791 F20101206_AABZFZ sullivan_j_Page_049thm.jpg
d64948f3dda678ad29bae923dc6a5662
f2132c4bc6512b136447ec45716fbddf5b4d6ec2
52030 F20101206_AABYEA sullivan_j_Page_085.pro
e37c8057ff384fc1c2c4afa3758d7b3a
9ecc096858f16b242320adac926599fa78ff16ad
1899 F20101206_AABZHC sullivan_j_Page_063.txt
c28dc70b00507ff2a169d6b73f833a4b
d03a951da5c112f05cee56a61567d364648b50eb
2785 F20101206_AABZGO sullivan_j_Page_166.txt
0ad7cdfa30e9b49d9bc9970ba55fc76d
5118f85516d6993e65672684ca5efc65952c2f99
26098 F20101206_AABYEB sullivan_j_Page_113.QC.jpg
d1fe4361cb04b2c6f58b591df4544d25
20d5292bc6fbc71218e54b80ecbbc80ec8badf50
F20101206_AABZHD sullivan_j_Page_031.tif
d61d2313026f1925f240d66237ffd92f
ce07f49b6fcfb287cbf6d78a199cbe69dd674a6f
F20101206_AABZGP sullivan_j_Page_113.tif
7837213438d3929a47b4bf04b31dbccc
07a16309ddbfbbff2c506c135c565fbd885f42a8
624972 F20101206_AABYEC sullivan_j_Page_142.jp2
cc86f04fad688dea2dc52422c2bb7be4
d9790861291755831316d057e52d64564a735d0b
24941 F20101206_AABZHE sullivan_j_Page_056.QC.jpg
1e9a93a60f325cf722ffcb0ee4141230
5cb26ec9b841cc9ef65dccdb0618267d04ed7c31
69867 F20101206_AABZGQ sullivan_j_Page_166.pro
b1afeceb328d2850bbbdd845dd046cad
c558fcb6609a9255f5e0edc09ca1f722c873809f
957 F20101206_AABYED sullivan_j_Page_118.txt
00fd32d9ec69e56c272a5187e8f69901
b6289ee3276183a70619cd1bff36fee10ff1e8fe
6747 F20101206_AABZHF sullivan_j_Page_094thm.jpg
47196e37873a38c8046d27ff9422ac3e
5f3cbc2505f308071cb4e4a3f7de7a97932cd5dc
109841 F20101206_AABZGR sullivan_j_Page_044.jp2
d1a2ef9245b8895c3333fa36fb158681
81ce7fe0102292b1a3b8fd96f4fc763e832c3cb6
47411 F20101206_AABYEE sullivan_j_Page_063.pro
dba78914d3aabaf5a16536679fbb5635
7439854123e4d7720725e4b651ab2bb999ac1cf8
73491 F20101206_AABZHG sullivan_j_Page_033.jpg
6110c9409a90420e77d530f182e0f292
f5c1bd89487cb108c04427674a82e34df72aba1f
23018 F20101206_AABZGS sullivan_j_Page_131.QC.jpg
671d3bce5f3c851001d9bc91e23c3cf7
64e85057e21cffb840e919a3c7b072bcab3f37e1
25138 F20101206_AABYEF sullivan_j_Page_049.QC.jpg
32793f15b901dbd3f29859755ef93773
5a4a9fcd4b65b3169f24b7f9969cfffdd9a56202
F20101206_AABZHH sullivan_j_Page_172.tif
534928cc8afc6d88bcc7dd4569216e72
78785dc14e0b8252f53138471eb3ff8a255e2777
960332 F20101206_AABZGT sullivan_j_Page_144.jp2
2456bbfa3d61eae0ceb9022e9658201b
83514fe78ca041138f9566f6b80817cc84f9c1e8







DECISION MODEL FOR PUBLIC SECTOR ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABLE
BUILDINGS IN FLORIDA




















By

JAMES G. SULLIVAN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007





































O 2007 James G. Sullivan

































To my family; thank you









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My thanks and appreciation is extended to the entire Blaney family for their guidance,

concern, and support throughout my life. If it was not for Bill, I would have never developed my

fascination for hardhats and drafting tables. My gratitude to Dr. Charles Kibert for his

inspirational leadership, and thanks to the entire staff at the M.E. Drinker, Sr., School of Building

construction for their generosity and seemingly endless patience. To Dr. James Lynch and his

staff I am enduringly beholden. Finally I acknowledge my friends, classmates, and students for

their support, for I rarely travel alone.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ................. ...............10........... ....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............12....


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............15.......... ......


Introducti on ................. ...............15.................
Sustainability Defined .............. ...............16....
Problem Statement ................. ...............16.................

Purpose of the Study ................. ...............17.......... .....
Methodology ............... ... ... .......... ...............17.......
Research Objectives and Limitations .............. ...............18....

Objective 1............... ...............18...
Obj ective 2 ................. ...............18........... ....
Objective 3............... ...............19...
Obj ective 4 ................. ...............19........... ....
Objective 5............... ...............19...
Limitation 1 .............. ...............19....
Limitation 2 .............. ...............19....
Limitation 3 .............. ...............19....
Limitation 4 .............. ...............20....
Limitation 5 .............. ...............20....
Limitation 6 .............. ...............20....


2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............22................


Introducti on ................. ...............22.................

Defining Green .............. ...............24....

Designing Green ................. ...............25.................
Costing Green .................. ... ..... ........ ...............26......
UF's First Green Proj ect Rinker Hall ................ ...............28.............
Sustainable Construction .............. ...............29....

Driving Forces .............. ...............33....
Business Case for Green ............. ...... ._ ...............34...
First-Cost Benefits ............._...... ..__ ...............35....

Building Performance Benefits .............. ...............36....
Health and Productivity Benefits............... ...............37
Environmental Benefits ............. ...... ._ ...............40....
Social Benefits............... ...............41

Barriers to Sustainable Design............... ...............43.












Local Adoption of LEED Programs ................. ...............44.......... ....
Gainesville and Sarasota............... ...............45
M market Trends .............. ...............45....
Florida................. .. .. ... .. .... .. .. ... ........4
Florida Universities and Community Colleges Construction Background ................... ..47
Funding for University Proj ects .............. ... .......... ...............48.....
Construction Costs for Postsecondary Proj ects ......._ ......... ___ .........__ ......49
UF, FSU, and UCF Cost Comparison .............. ...............49....
University of Florida LEED History ............... ...............51......_ ....
Cost Impact of LEED Credits ..............._ ...............53......_ ....
Evaluation of LEED Prerequisites ..............._ ...............55......_ ....
Cost Anchoring and Adjusting ............... ...............55....
Florida Code and LEED Prerequisites .............. ...............57....
Sustainable Site Prerequisite ............... ... .. ... .... ... ..........5
Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 1 Fundamental Commissioning.................. ........59
Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 2 Minimum Energy Performance ........................62
Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 3 CFC Reduction in HVAC and R Equipment....62
Materials and Resources Prerequisite 1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables ............62
Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 1............... ...... ...... ..... .......6
Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke ..............63
Separation of Preference and Cost. ........._.._ ..... ._._ ...............65...

3 DECISION MODEL METHODOLOGY .............. ...............81....


Introducti on ........._...... ......_ ._ ...............81....
Current Building M ethod ........._..... ... ..._ ... ...............81..
Existing Delivery Method Performance Evaluation............... ...............8
Global Performance Level ........._.._ ..... _.__ ...............83....
Goal Identification and Program Assessment. .....___.....__.___ .......____ ...........8
Decision to Change ........._.. ..... ._ ...............85....
Logical Scoring of Preferences............... .. ............8
Sustainable Requirements and Parameter Tree .............. ...............87....
Preference Analysis M odel ........._..... ........._... ..... ...............89
Multi-attribute Decision Analysis (MADA) .............. ...............89....
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Detail ....._____ ...................__ ...........9
Preference Weighting of LEED Alternatives .........__ ............ .......___.........9
Cost Analy si s M od el .............. ..... .......... ...............96....
Costing Assumptions and Limitations............... ...............9
Cost Preference Analysis............... ...............98
Ranking of Competitive Systems .............. ...............99....
Decision ................. ...... ....__ .. ........ ..... .............9
Transition to More Sustainable Methods ......... ........_____ ...............100....
Sustainable Building Practices in Operation .............. ...............100....

4 DECISION MODEL FUNCTIONS ............ .......... ...............109..


Introducti on ................. ...............109..............











Preference Analysis Model ............ ..... ._ ...............109...
Cost Analysis M odel ............ ..... ._ ...............112...
Cost Preference Analysis ............ ..... ._ ...............113...
Ranking of Competitive Systems ............ ..... .__ ...............114..
Decision (Selection of Best Alternative) ............_...... __ ........ .......114
Transition to More Sustainable Practices (Trend Analysis) ......____ ....... ..__............114

5 RE SULT S ........._.._... ...............13_ 1......._....


Model Summary ................. .. ...............13 1.
UJF' s No-Cost LEED Certification ............... ............. .............1 1
Sample Output by Preference for Identical Proj ect Data Input ................ .........__ ......132
UF Based Preference-Cost Analysis .............. ...............133....
Hi gh-Low Cost Analy si s ................. ................. 13......... 3...
Outcome Impacts ................. ...............13. 5..............
Case Study .............. ...............135....

6 CONCLUSIONS .............. ...............146....

APPENDIX

A LEED PROJECT CHECKLIST ................. ...............148......... .....

B LEED OVERVIEW ................. ................. 15......... 1....

Introducti on .................. .. ......... .......... .. ..... ....... .........5
Incorporation of UF Directives and LEED Credit Ratings .............. ....................15
LEED Credit Summary............... ...............151
Sustainable Sites (SS) ............... .... .. .. ........... .......... .......... ...........15
SS FPC Directive Prerequisite 2 Cultural Resources Protection (Required) ............152
SS FPC Directive Prerequisite 3 Clean Water Protection (Required) ................... .....152
SS Credit 1 Site Selection (Highly Recommended) ........._....... ....... ................152
SS Credit 2 Urban Redevelopment/Development Density (Recommended) ..............152
SS Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment (Conditionally Recommended)...................153
SS Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access (Highly
Recom m ended) .............. ........... ...... ..... .. ..........5
SS Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation: Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms
(Highly Recommended) ..........._. ..... ... .._. ..... ... __ .. ... ...... .........5
SS Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation: Low Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles
(Recommended) ................. ............. ......... ...... ..... .................5
SS Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation: Parking Capacity (Highly
Recom m ended) ....... .. ...... .... ......................... ...............15
SS Credit 5.1 Site Development: Protect or Restore Habitat (Highly
Recom m ended) ............ .. .. .. .................. ...............15
SS Credit 5.2 Site Development: Maximize Open Space (Highly Recommended).....155
SS Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design: Quantity Control (Recommended) ................... .....156
SS Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design: Quality Control (Highly Recommended)..............157











SS Credit 7. 1 Heat Island Effect: Non-Roof (Highly Recommended) ........................ 157
SS Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect: Roof (Highly Recommended) ............... ... ............157
SS Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction (Highly Recommended) .........._... .............158
W ater Efficiency (W E) .............. ..... ..._ ........__ .... .....................5
WE Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping: Reduce by 50% (Highly
Recom m ended) ............ ... .. .................... ... ...............15
WE Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping: No Potable Water Use or No
Irrigation (Highly Recommended) ............... ...........__.........__ ...............15
WE Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies (Highly Recommended) ..............160
WE Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction: 20% (Highly Recommended) ........._................160
WE Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction: 30% (Highly Recommended) ...........................161
Energy and Atmosphere (EA) .............. .................................6
EA Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance (Highly Recommended) ..........................162
EA Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy (Conditionally Recommended) ....................163
EA Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning (Highly Recommended) .............. ..............163
EA Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management (Conditionally Recommended) .......164
EA Credit 5 Measurement and Verification (Highly Recommended) ..........................164
EA Credit 6 Green Power (Conditionally Recommended) .............. ......................6
M materials and Resources (M R) .........._... ........ ... .... ... .._._ ....... ..........16
MR Credit 1.1 Building Reuse: Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof
(Conditionally Recommended) ................... .. ....... .... ....... ..... .... ..............6
MR Credit 1.2 Building Reuse: Maintain 95% of Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof
(Conditionally Recommended) ................... .. ..... ..... .. .... ......... .. ...........16
MR Credit 1.3 Building Reuse: Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural elements
(Conditionally Recommended) ............... .. .... ... ... ... ......... ... ............6
MR Credit 2. 1 Construction Waste Management: Divert 50% from Disposal
(Recommended) ................... ........ ...... .... ......... ... .... .. .........6
MR Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management: Divert 75% from Disposal
(Recommended) ............... .. ... .......... ..... ...... .... ........ ........6
MR Credit 3.1 Materials Reuse: 5% (Conditionally Recommended) ................... .......168
MR Credit 3.2 Materials Reuse: 10% (Conditionally Recommended) ................... .....169
MR Credit 4. 1 Recycled Content: 10% (post-consumer + '/ pre-consumer) (Highly
Recom m ended) ........................ .... .....................16
MR Credit 4.2 Recycled Content: 20% (post-consumer + '/ pre-consumer)
(Recommended) .................. ... ............ ..... ...... .... ..... ............6
MR Credit 5.1 Regional Materials: 10% Extracted, Processed and Manufactured
Regionally (Highly Recommended) .............. ...... .. ........................17
MR Credit 5.2 Regional Materials: 20% Extracted, Processed and Manufactured
Regionally (Recommended) .............. ..... ..... ..... ..................17
MR Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials (Conditionally Recommended) ................172
MR Credit 7 Certified Wood (Recommended) .............. ...............172....
Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ) ................... .... .......... ...... ........ ...............17
EQ Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Method (Conditionally Recommended) ................173
EQ Credit 2 Increased Ventilation (Conditionally Recommended) ................... ...........173
EQ Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan: During Construction (Highly
Recommended) .............. ...............174....











EQ Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan: Before Occupancy (Highly
Recom m ended) ............. .... .... ............... ......................17
EQ Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials: Adhesives and Sealants (Highly
Recom m ended) .............. .... ... ... ............. ...............17
EQ Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials: Paints and Coatings (Highly
Recom m ended) ............ .. .. .. ................ ... ...............17
EQ Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials: Carpet Systems (Highly Recommended).....1 75
EQ Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials: Composite Wood (Highly Recommended)..176
EQ Credit 5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control (Highly
Recom m ended) ................. .. ......... ... ... .. ... .. .............7
EQ Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems: Lighting (Conditionally Recommended)..177
EQ Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems: Thermal (Conditionally Recommended) ..177
EQ Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort: Design (Recommended)............... ..............17
EQ Credit 7. 1 Thermal Comfort: Verification (Conditionally Recommended) ...........178
EQ Credit 8.1 Daylight and Views: Daylight 75% of Spaces (Highly
Recom m ended) ................... ......... ... ...... ..........7
EQ Credit 8.2 Daylight and Views: Views for 90% of Spaces (Recommended) ........179
ID Credits 1 to 1.4 Innovation in Design (Conditionally Recommended) ................... .179
ID Credit 2: Innovation and Design LEED Accredited Professional (AP) ................... 181
Summary ................. ...............182................

LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............185................

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............188......... ......











LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Initial capital construction costs for IHS LEED proj ects. ......___ .... ... .__ ..............72

2-2 USGBC Sample cost data ...........__...... .__ ...............72.

2-3 LEED criteria development .............. ...............72....

2-4 LEED certification levels............... ...............73.

2-5 LEED 2.2 rating system points per category .............. ...............73....

2-6 LEED certified and registered proj ects ...._._._.. ............. ...............73...

2-7 Business case for high performance green buildings summary .........___........ ............ ...74

2-8 Florida LEED certified proj ects location and award level ................. .......................74

2-9 Number of Florida LEED registered proj ects by owner type.............___ .........__ ......74

2-10 Impacts of green building by survey respondents. .......___......... .........___......75

2-11 Florida university enrollment for 2004-05............... ...............75

2-12 Florida' s post-secondary construction costs based on 2004 data .............. ................76

2-13 Comparison of proj ect costs on Florida campuses ...........__...... ........... ....77

2-14 Comparison of professional fee percentage across campuses ...........__... ......__........78

2-15 University of Florida green building stock ............_......_ ....__ ..........7

2-16 LEED cost values (LCV) ........._.__........__. ...............79..

2-17 Associated LEED costs for North Boulder Recreation Center............_._. ........._._. ....79

2-18 LEED prerequisite standards .............. ...............80....

2-19 Construction phase commissioning costs .............. ...............80....

3-1 Sample existing system global performance evaluation checklist............... ................0

3-2 The pairwise comparison scale ................. ...............107__ ....

3-3 Sample applied construction cost percentages for college student union ......................108

4-1 LEED alternatives preference outcomes............... ...............12











4-2 Balanced LEED alternatives (Evenly Distributed) ......___ .......__ ...............128

4-3 Performance weighted LEED alternatives ....__ ......_____ .......___ ............2

4-4 Environment weighted LEED alternatives .............. ...............129....

4-5 Social weighted LEED alternatives ..........._ .....___ ...............129.

4-6 Health weighted LEED alternatives............... .............13

5-1 UF certified and silver standard and low cost credit breakdown by costs ................... ....144

5-2 Preference weights applied to UF standards and options .............. ....................14

5-3 Low and high cost conceptual estimates............... ...............14

5-4 Outcome impacts by preference weights with GSF cost ranges ............... ..............145

B-1 University of Florida LEED Credit Ratings ................. ...............183........... ..

B-2 Bike rack and shower facilities for commercial users .............. ...............183....










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Research progression .............. ...............21....

2-1 Relationship between LEED alternatives and outcomes .............. ....................6

2-2 Building demand for average southeast commercial building............... ................6

2-3 University of Florida LEED credit evaluation steps ....._____ ... .....___ .............. .70

2-4 LEED first cost impacts based on building standards .............. ...............71....

3-1 Decision model for assessment of sustainable construction (DMASC) ................... .......101

3-2 Green education conduits among construction participants .............. .....................0

3-3 Traditional linear design approach ................. ...............103........... ...

3-4 Sustainable integrated design approach ................. ...............103........... ...

3-5 Logical scoring of preferences method ................. ...............104..............

3-6 LEED sustainable requirements and parameter (SRP) tree ................. ............. .......104

3-7 An example hierarchy for the problem of selecting the best LEED alternatives............. 105

4-1 LEED alternatives composite score and ranking ................. ......... .............. ....11

4-2 LEED alternatives with synergistic sums across three out of four outcomes ..................1 16

4-3 Preference impact weights ................. ...............116......... .....

4-4 Initial ranked evaluations of alternatives for evenly weighted alternatives ................... ..1 17

4-5 Initial ranked evaluations for 70% performance weighted alternatives. ................... .......118

4-6 Initial ranked evaluations for 70% environment weighted alternatives. ................... .......119

4-7 Initial ranked evaluations for 70% social weighted alternatives .............. ...................120

4-8 Initial ranked evaluations for 70% health weighted alternatives ................ .................1 21

4-9 Proj ect data sheet ................ ...............122........... ...

4-10 Proj ect/LEED specific data. ........... ......__ ...............123

4-11 LEED scorecard costing .............. ...............124....











4-12 Sample LEED credit cost summary/take-off ............... ...........12

4-13 Cost preference analysis .............. ...............126....

4-14 DMASC cost-preference summary sheet ................. ...............127........... ...

5-1 UF's standard only LEED credit proj ect ..........._ .......... ...............13

5-2 Lowest cost credits for UF ranked by low-cost and weighted ranking. ................... ........138

5-3 Highest cost credits for UF ranked by low-cost and weighted ranking. ................... .......139

5-4 Sample medical center proj ect data input. ................ ....___ ............ ......14

5-5 Sample medical center LEED specific proj ect data. ................. ....___ .................141

5-6 Health weighted certified medical center case study ................. ......... ................1 42

5-7 Sample certified medical center scorecard. ............. ...............143....

B-1 Construction waste management plan implementation .............. .....................8









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

DECISION MODEL FOR PUBLIC SECTOR ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABLE
BUILDINGS IN FLORIDA

By

JAMES G. SULLIVAN

August 2007

Chair: Charles Kibert
Major: Design, Construction, and Planning

My study examines first costs and design outcomes in pursuing a United States Green

Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED)

certification for new commercial construction in the state of Florida. My study notes the two

greatest drivers determining first costs are proj ect specific LEED credits selected and the degree

to which current building standards and practices meet those required by the USGBC.

The model incorporates a Logical Scoring of Preferences (LSP) method that evaluates

decision makers' preferences and cost separately and then combines preference rankings and

costs to provide a range of costs and sustainable impacts. Each LEED credit is automatically

conceptually estimated based on a limited number of proj ect specific inputs. The resulting

output presents certification benchmarks and cost ranges for the evaluation of LEED alternatives.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Introduction

While sustainable design and construction practices continue to grow within the United

States, and specifically within the State of Florida, there is continued confusion regarding

designed benefits and associated first costs of certified green construction. This research

presents a current and applicable Decision Model for the Assessment of Sustainable Construction

(DMASC) in Florida. The DMASC model incorporates a logical scoring system which provides

a way to independently evaluate sustainable alternatives based on building performance,

environment, social, and occupant health impacts and associated first costs. The model provides

public entities a means for evaluating sustainable construction methods compared with current

traditional methods based on first costs. The tool identifies key factors for successful adaptation

from traditional to integrated sustainable design and construction. Decision processes are broken

into three phases 1) an initial evaluation stage, 2) a combined preference and cost stage, and 3) a

final ranked decision stage to aid in the selection of sustainable alternatives. The model

incorporates the United States Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and

Environment Design (LEED) for new construction 2.2 point based building evaluation and

certification tool. Appendix A provides a LEED scorecard listing alternatives under category

headings. Established in 1998, the USGBC LEED certification process is the predominant

sustainability criteria used in evaluating buildings throughout the United States (US). It has been

adopted by the Government Service Agency (GSA), branches of the US Military, and used in

several state- and university-based construction programs.









Sustainability Defined

Often used interchangeably, the terms sustainable construction and sustainable

development, have different connotations for different audiences. Some may even argue that the

phrase "sustainable construction" is oxymoronic and that other phrases such as "more

sustainable" or "more environmentally friendly construction" be used in its stead. Sustainable

has been defined as "... non-declining human well-being over time (Pearce and Warford 1993);

"providing for the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their needs (WCED 1987).; and "the use of energy and materials in an urban

area in balance with what the region can supply continuously through natural processes such as

photosynthesis, biological decomposition, and the biochemical processes which support life"

(Lyle 1994).

In the construction realm, sustainable is often used as a relative term compared to its

traditional counterpart. Traditional construction emphasizes project schedules, code compliance,

quality, and cost. Sustainable construction includes these same elements but also emphasizes

performance, resource conservation, environmental degradation, occupant well-being, and social

benefits as important factors for consideration. Sustainability has evolved to incorporate various

economic and socio-political factors such as human quality of life, and it is this global view that

we, as a species, must move towards to build a common standard of living and education.

However, the current traditional construction mindset is primarily based on maximizing limited

natural resources and basic short-term economics of exploiting those natural resources.

Problem Statement

Currently there is no model available to evaluate project specific LEED building criteria

based on local standards, key decision makers' sustainable preferences and building program,

cost, location, and LEED certification level. Two of the most cited LEED critiques are: 1)









LEED costs too much and 2) point mongering becomes the goal of design rather than building

the best sustainable building as possible given constraints (Schendler and Udall 2005). Too

often in consulting sessions the process of selecting credits is based on lowest cost, not on owner

preference, program fit, or credit impact. During these sessions the relationship between project

function and point impacts tends to be lost altogether as proj ect teams focus on achievability of

"no cost" credits above all other considerations. DMASC was developed in part to address this

void.

Purpose of the Study

My research developed a decision model that allows for the evaluation of sustainable

criteria for use in public buildings in Florida. I provided decision makers with a way to assess

sustainable criteria based on preferences, outcome impacts, proj ect applicability, and cost as to

provide a more comprehensive way to make a selection. My study builds upon the experiences

of staff at the University of Florida over the past eight years as they have gone managing their

first LEED certified building, Rinker Hall in 2000, to the adoption of a minimum LEED

certification for all buildings constructed on campus in 2007.

Methodology

The Decision Model for the Assessment of Sustainable Construction (DMASC) is a three

stage model that provides a structure and means for the adoption of more sustainable practices

and evaluation of USGBC LEED sustainable criteria. The model consists of the following:

* Phase I Analysis of current building methods and decision process for moving to the
adoption of more sustainable building practices.

* Phase II The incorporation of Logical Scoring of Preferences (LSP) methods that
evaluate obj ectives of decision makers and initial costs separately.

* Phase III The process of reconciling preferences and costs to determine a hierarchy of
best fit criteria for a building program.










My methodology serves to link the attributes of sustainable construction (i.e., building

performance impacts, environmental impacts, social impacts, and health impacts) with owner

preference in a systematic way. Critiques of the LEED system refer to point shopping and

seeking the cheapest points regardless of building program or owner preference for impact

(Schendler and Udall 2005). My methodology addresses this concern.

Research Objectives and Limitations

The primary purpose of this research is to provide a structure to assess the impacts and

costs of sustainable construction techniques for use in Florida-based public proj ects. The

obj ective is to develop a research assessment tool that allows decision makers to evaluate the

potential success of adopting sustainable standards and guidelines. The end-user focus is the

public sector (i.e., local municipalities, county governments, and public universities).

Objective 1

Provide an overview of current trends, perceptions, and cost studies associated with LEED

design in the United States.

Objective 2

Examine history and current practices of the Facilities and Planning Department (FPD) at

the University of Florida (UF) to identify benchmarks for sustainable design. The DMASC

assessment logic builds upon the FPD processes that have been developed between years 2000

and 2007. Included in these processes are energy modeling, commissioning, and construction

costs, as well as architect and engineering (A and E) costs and fees associated with sustainable

design.










Objective 3

Base the DMASC on a Logical Scoring of Preferences (LSP) model that initially evaluates

preference and cost criteria separately, and subsequently uses both criteria in the final ranking

and eventual sustainable criteria selection process.

Objective 4

Use Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) techniques in the evaluation of LEED

alternatives during the preference analysis phase of the LSP model. Alternatives will be

evaluated based on environment, building performance, occupant health, and social impacts.

These scores determine the DMASC model preference rankings.

Objective 5

Provide recommendations for future research and applicableness of the model for

stakeholders outside the Florida public sector.

Limitation 1

The model is based for use in a public setting where decision makers have direct input as

to the development and adoption of building standards.

Limitation 2

This model does not seek to derive an optimal solution. Rather it is an assessment and

decision tool that allows for decision makers to weigh alternatives at the conceptual phase of a

project. The preference scoring systems provides ranking data relative to alternatives and as

such is a unit-less measure.

Limitation 3

Estimates of cost are for sample solutions to meet LEED credit requirements and are in no

way meant to be the only solution or method to achieve a credit. In addition the relative wide

range in low- and high-estimates, plus or minus 25 percent, are intended to account for time










factors (i.e., inflation, interest rates) and regional material, labor, and cost variety within the

state. Detailed estimates for each credit should be completed by the build team during the

program phase of construction. A key design feature of the model was to base conceptual

estimates on information that would be available at the programming stage of design.

Limitation 4

The model is not designed to formulate a best solution. The strength of the DMASC

model is that it allows for users to adjust rankings, impacts, and costs as it relates to their specific

proj ect. Its purpose is to provide a logical structure and system that adds value to the sustainable

design process.

Limitation 5

Part of my study is to determine costs based on differences between traditional methods

and sustainable methods. As such the cost estimates reflect the conceptual additional costs and

should not be used to base contract values for achieving credits.

Limitation 6

My study looks at first costs and does not address payback, return-on-investment, or

possible cost lowering scenarios in anyway. For example it does not assume that there is a

payback for sorting construction debris and how this debris value, such as metal, may offset the

cost of separating waste. This is up to the project team to evaluate the strategy. The model does

allow for a credit identifier as "Standard" or no-cost to identify credits that the team determines

are no-cost without having to justify these costs with an estimate.

The individual research obj ectives provide the framework for this proj ect. This chapter

provides the rationale and reasons for developing a sustainable construction evaluation model.

Figure 1-1 summarizes the research progression.






















































Conclusions and
Recommendations




Figure 1-1. Research progression


Problem Statement and
Literature Review






Review of UF Data /GSA
Study
LSP model evaluated




LSP based Decision
Model for Assessment of
Sustainable Construction




Preference and Cost Paths
developed with Model
Constraints


Assessment Tool
Preference Scenarios









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

The kind of environment we live in--and will leave to our children--depends on the kind
of society we create within our communities. The social infrastructure fundamental to a
healthy environment in this human-dominated world includes not only good laws and
public institutions; a thriving, rational economy; and a responsive political system but also
shared information, knowledge, goals and values; active civic organizations; and, crucially
mutual tolerance and regard among the citizens of a community and concern for one
another' swell being.
Shabecoff

The nexus for the Decision Model for the Assessment of Sustainable Construction

(DMASC) was a request to succinctly present the tie between sustainable construction impacts or

benefits with associated first costs to a local Florida county commission's budget hearing. The

commissioners wanted a path explained to them that led from their traditional methods to ones

that were more sustainable. Along with this path they wanted to know the exact costs of each

step. After costs were determined they wanted to know specific benefits of having a certified

green building. Their interest was in pursuing a LEED certification. This was a difficult request.

There was no reference to a systematic way of explaining the impacts of credit categories or how

decision makers come to grips with first costs and LEED certification levels other than

answering the question with a statement similar to "it depends."

Due to the nature of the LEED scoring system, that is after the completing a set of

prerequisites, the credits selected are up to the owner and proj ect team. It was difficult to

guarantee performance outcomes solely based on certification levels. In order to address the

concerns regarding first costs and performance impacts a model was needed to explain how an

entity, be it private owner or public institution, transitions from current traditional methods to

more sustainable ones. Information regarding integrated sustainable design benefits and costs is









widespread across several countries, states, and cities, but little or no information is available in

print regarding efforts made in the state of Florida.

The basic tenets of sustainable construction are straightforward and stress the importance

of human health, energy and water conservation, site planning, and material selection in order to

provide a measurable benefit to the inhabitants of the building, the environment, and the

community, but how these tenets drive design and cost decisions is less discernable. Although

decision makers are willing to embrace the tenets of sustainability they are not willing to fund

them blindly. There was need to develop a decision model.

Over the past decade several states, notably California, Minnesota, and Massachusetts,

have enlisted the aid of Greg Kats and his staff at Capital E Analysis, to provide detailed cost

reports regarding the economic benefits of green design for school systems (Kats 2003). This

data emphasizes the return-on-investment (ROI) of sustainable energy savings and increased

gains in staff productivity by providing a healthy controllable indoor environment. At the same

time the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) has developed a powerful tool, the

Leadership in Engineering and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System, which has

become the benchmark for evaluating the 'greenness' of commercial proj ects. The LEED tool is

a third- party verification system for which designers and contractors supply proj ect information

to be verified by the USGBC. The USGBC then rates a proj ect on a scale of certified, silver,

gold, or platinum, based on material submitted and on total points awarded. With the success of

the LEED program, along with strong political and administrative support, 18 states have

adopted, mandated, or reviewed aspects of LEED for large state proj ects. All branches of the

armed services incorporate sustainable planks in their building program guidelines, as well as the

U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). In the state of Florida, the City of Gainesville, the









University of Florida, and Sarasota County have adopted green standards for large projects. This

chapter provides an overview of LEED cost studies and how the impacts of green construction

are perceived. The USGBC website provides an updated comprehensive overview of LEED

based resolutions and initiatives established for branches of government, states, cities, public

institutions, and colleges throughout the United States.

Defining Green

To first form an opinion of sustainable practices, a working definition is in order. In

academic, social, political and ecological circles, sustainable development is often defined by a

quote from a UN-sponsored commission (UN 1993): "those paths of social economic and

political progress that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs." From a design, planning, and construction view, the

Office of the Federal Environmental Executive defines green building as "the practice of

1) increasing the efficiency with which buildings and their sites use energy, water, and materials,

and 2) reducing building impacts on human health and the environment, through site selection,

design, construction, operation, maintenance, and removal--the complete building life cycle."

Typically, the first question asked by decision makers is what types of buildings are

currently being delivered? Designers and contractors follow the design program requirements

requested by owners and conform to existing code regulations. To review what is being

delivered, one must review current program requirements. Most traditional building programs

require the proj ect to meet building code and to provide a specified square footage of space for

each user or activity. Sustainable programs incorporate traditional requirements but expand the

role of designers and contractors to include additional considerations such as erosion and

sedimentation control, indoor air quality, and levels of building performance.










Designing Green

A building does not need to register with a third party verification system to be more

sustainable. In fact, there are a number of hindrances with regard to subscribing to a LEED-type

program, most notably the costs associated with tracking and submitting documentation for

verification. Similar to any type of auditing practice, the only way to achieve LEED credits is to

provide the necessary paper trail to support one's claims. For the most part, this cost impact may

be reduced with experience. Proj ect Managers on staff at the University of Florida, for example,

state a LEED certified building can currently be delivered on campus at no additional expense.

This claim is rooted in the following:

* Experience with over sixteen registered LEED projects on campus.

* Current level of construction standards.

* Recent market transformation towards lower 'green' material costs.

* Requiring both designer and contractor previous experience on a minimum of two LEED
proj ects.

* Processing LEED submittals by UF proj ect staff.

This model verifies this claim.

LEED emphasizes five key elements in design: 1) sustainable sites, 2) water efficiency, 3)

energy and atmosphere, 4) material and resources, and 5) indoor environmental quality. By

stressing these categories and providing guidelines to meet key requirements, the USGBC has

allowed for common dialogue among owners, architects, engineers, contractors and building

users. This collaborative dialogue provides unique opportunities for communication that may

not typically occur in a traditional construction setting. The DMASC model re-shuffles the

LEED alternative intents into four outcome categories. Figure 2-1 illustrates the relationship

between LEED sustainable categories and DMASC sustainable outcomes.









Costing Green

Three main costing studies have been produced over the past Hyve years, one a prescriptive

estimating study examining the General Service Administration's (GSA) design program (GSA

2004), another prescriptive study examining cost impacts to the existing Indian Health Service

(IHS) building program(IHS 2006), and one post-built study of actual design and construction

costs for proj ects built throughout the US (Morris 2004). The GSA study shows a progression of

cost increases through the LEED system from certified to platinum. Essentially, the GSA will

increase proj ect funding by 2.5% to cover LEED certification costs. The caveat to this number is

that GSA was already performing tasks associated with significant costs in their base program.

Items such as commissioning and meeting ASHRAE guidelines were included in their base

building.

The second study is a 2006 report put together by a team from Seattle that was

commissioned by the Division of Engineering Services (DES). The DES is responsible for

overseeing all new healthcare facilities for the IHS. This study examined the cost impact of each

applicable LEED credit based to existing IHS program standards. The study also demonstrated

Life-Cycle Costs (LCC) for each credit. Additionally, it compared its findings with that of the

GSA report. This gives insight to how the LEED process impacts two different building types

developed under two different building programs. Table 2-1 illustrates the cost impacts based on

the existing $197 per square foot construction cost and 84,895 Gross Square Foot (GSF) IHS

building program. Estimated budget for the IHS proj ect is $16,753,370.

The third study often cited includes a report produced by the Davis Langdon firm, a design

firm that provides "comprehensive cost planning and sustainable design management services to

architects and owners (Langdon 2004)." In this study the company reviewed its proprietary cost

database to compare green versus non-green buildings on the basis of cost. The USGBC's









LEED Rating System was also used as a basis for determining the level of sustainability a proj ect

achieved. Individual credits were not assessed. Forty-five library, laboratory, and academic

classroom proj ects designed with some level of LEED certification were selected for comparison

with 93 non-LEED projects of the same types. All costs were normalized for location and time

of construction.

Given the common perception that LEED proj ects cost more than non-LEED proj ects, the

analysis was striking. The results showed no statistically significant difference between LEED

and non-LEED proj ects. The LEED proj ects were dispersed through the range of all proj ects

based on cost. It is important to note that the standard deviation of building square footage costs

was high, based on the different types of buildings and different square footages of the sample

buildings. In addition the study focused on projects in states that had relative high performance

existing standards such as California, Oregon, and Washington.

Davis Langdon also reviewed the non-LEED projects to determine what, if any, LEED

certifications would be achieved. Ten random non-LEED projects were selected from the

original list of 93. The ten buildings scored between 15 and 29 points based on the LEED

scorecard. The proj ect that scored an estimated 29 points would have surpassed the necessary 26

points needed to achieve LEED certification. Overall, the study indicated that typically, 12

LEED points can be earned without altering design, based on location of building and local code

requirements. Furthermore, up to 18 additional LEED points may be accomplished with

minimum design effort at little or no additional cost. What is not noted in this study are the fee

structure and schedule for the proj ect designers, engineers, and contractors.

A common way to determine the cost of green is to compare the proj ect' s final budget with

the initial budget. This tends to include all cost overages, not only those associated with LEED









points. Over half of the proj ects studied had no additional costs allotted for LEED and came in

within budget. The remaining projects had additional monies set aside for items such as

photovoltaic systems and other special enhancements. These projects' additional 'green'

supplements ranged between 0.0 and 3.0 percent of the initial budget. The most successful

proj ects identified LEED goals from the onset and maximized integrated design opportunities.

Bidding climate was also a key element in determining the final cost of a building. Contractors

unfamiliar with LEED, or any new constraint system or regulation, will include additional

monies to cover their unknown risks associated with learning a new system. In areas new to

LEED two main trends occur: 1) bidders add contingency for the unknown, and 2) the number of

bidders is reduced, thus reducing the competitive nature of bidding against multiple players.

Davis Langdon suggests the following to achieve LEED within budget constraints:

* Understand feasibility and costs for each point on a proj ect.
* Sustainability is a design/program issue, not an added requirement.
* Establish team goals and responsibilities.
* Align budget with program.

Morris and colleagues concluded "It is the choices made during the design which will ultimately

determine whether a building can be sustainable, not the budget set."

The USGBC does not provide detailed cost data for credits as part of its service to its

members, and cost data that is provided is cryptic and does not provide any dollar ranges for

LEED alternatives or credit options. Table 2-2 illustrates a sample of the cost data for

Sustainable Site Credits (SSCredit) and Sustainable Site Prerequisite (SSPrereq) provided by the

USGBC. No associated dollar values are given for the various symbols used in Table 2-2.

UF's First Green Project Rinker Hall

After reviewing costs for Rinker Hall, UF's first LEED building, it is estimated that an

additional 10% of the building' s base budget was spent on achieving a LEED-NC 2. 1 Gold









certification (REF for the estimate). This has resulted in energy savings of approximately 30%

per year and water savings of over 75% per year. The payback period is less than seven years,

after which the university will benefit from the reduced operation cost. User estimates for

increase construction costs associated with this project hover around 10%. My study confirms

this cost at the time of construction. This percentage would have been less if Rinker Hall was

built today due the lessons learned and program requirements noted previously.

Sustainable Construction

As an industry in the United States, construction represents significant consumer use

(40%) of raw materials while giving back a significant amount (33%) of total landfill waste

(Kibert 2002). It is this relationship of consuming vast amounts of raw materials and production

of large volumes of waste that causes leaders in the construction industry to look for systems that

may limit the environmental impacts. Kibert looks to natural systems and ecology as a basis to

understand the harm caused and for methods to mitigate this harm by potentially mimicking the

natural world Industrial ecology is given as an example of system- based thinking used to close

the consumption-to-waste loop. Similar areas of interest include industrial metabolism, eco-

efficiency, and design for the environment (DFE). These like fields suggest moving from a

linear consumption/waste module to a cyclical "natural" model that limits waste and leads to a

continuous process rather than a simplified dead end (i.e., land fi11).

Forward thinking construction models look not only to close consumption/waste loops

through building designs but to also examine buildings continued use and long-term effects on

the inhabitants and surroundings. While buildings may represent designers' ability to control

and dominate their surroundings, each structure is also part of a lacuna of natural systems within

the design community. Thus, while human abilities are impressive, the lack of understanding of

the systems that surround and interact with a structure limits its potential for efficiency and









harmony with its environment. Current industry practices have various degenerative effects such

as soil erosion, biodiversity degradation, and water pollution and waste. Odum's work is

mentioned as a link between embodied energy and relative input of system components to the

operational whole (Odum 2001; Kibert 2002). The intriguing aspect of this is the use of the

hierarchal structure to better understand the selection and use of building components. The

DMASC structure also includes a hierarchal element in the decision process.

According to Steele (Steele 1997), the first use of the term sustainability in reference to

human impact on environment was in a 1980 International Union for the Conservation of Nature

(UCN) publication entitled "World Conservation Strategy." This work focused on the debate

between pro-growth and anti-growth sentiments as to which course would ultimately best serve

humankind and the planet. Although this report did not lead to any large change in public

policy, it did influence two other more significant reports: the Brandt Commission Report and

the Brundtland Commission Report (Steele 1997).

The Brandt Commission was initiated when the World Bank appointed Willy Brandt,

Chair of the Social Democratic Party of the Federal Republic of Germany, to head a 20-member

commission from non-industrial countries to study the relationships among resource degradation,

waste, and international financing. The Commission initially authored a report titled "North-

South: A Program for Survival" in 1980. The report promoted changes in the operational

procedures and policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In hindsight,

the commission findings have been questioned due to turmoil caused by third-world countries

faulting on loans; however, the commission work was valuable, bringing to the forefront the

need to recognize global negotiations and the impacts that industries in one country have on the

entire planet.









Following the Brand Commission, the next universally lauded report on sustainability is

the Brundtland Report., an outcome of the 1987 United Nations World Commission on

Environment and Development that focused on the compromise between growth and non-growth

factions. Heading this committee was Norwegian Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, who

helped produce "Our Common Future," a seminal report that defined sustainability in terms of

growth and future environmental impacts or "those paths of social economic and political

progress that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs." This definition is supported by the land, material resource,

and energy efficiencies of the green design movement.

The USGBC started to develop LEED design criteria between 1994 and 1995 in response

to market-driven demand for a definition of environmentally friendly or 'green' design and

product initiatives. LEED categories and supporting alternatives were developed by a host of

designers, architects, engineers, and environmentalists focused on improving environmental

impacts, health of building occupants, and economic benefits of the building environment. The

LEED criteria have evolved since their conception in 1994 as noted in Table 2-3. Currently the

USGBC reports 986 million square feet of registered and certified commercial space within the

United States (USGBC 2007).

The first LEED criteria developed in 1994/1995 included a simple pass or fail system in

which a proj ect meeting minimum requirements would be certified. This was followed by the

LEED 1.0 Program in 1998, in which different levels of achievement would be recognized. In

2000, and with minor re-submittal requirements in 2004 and 2005, the LEED 2.1 and 2.2

Programs were issued that support the points program currently in effect.









The "Green" building movement incorporates several aspects of social design (Gifford

2002) in that it looks to provide a healthier environment for its users via collaboratively agreed-

upon design criteria. The USGBC has expanded from LEED for new construction to include a

number of different applicable design and construction criteria. The following lists the various

LEED rating programs in place or under development (USGBC 2007):

* New Commercial Construction and Maj or Renovation proj ects
* Existing Building Operations and Maintenance
* Commercial Interiors proj ects
* Core and Shell Development proj ects
* Homes
* Neighborhood Development
* Guidelines for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Proj ects.

As discussed above, this criterion has gone through 3 maj or revisions since 1993 with the

latest version titled LEED Rating System 2.2 (USGBC 2007). Building evaluation and

accreditation is based on a prerequisite and point system. The more points or credits achieved

out of the total of 69 available points, the higher the buildings ratings. Table 2-4 provides a list

of certification levels and associated number of minimum credits or points needed. As noted in

Chapter 1, Appendix A provides a complete LEED-NC 2.2 Scorecard. Points may be accrued in

various combinations of design strategies, but prerequisites must be achieved or the building will

not receive any form of accreditation from the USGBC. The main six (6) categories have

remained consistent over time (updates have only been in terms of defining individual credits).

The six (6) categories consist of five (5) environmental headings and one (1) design

process general heading. The five environmental categories are Sustainable Sites, Water

Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Indoor Environmental Quality, and Materials and

Resources. The additional design category is titled Innovation and Design. Each category is

designated with several sub-categories or credits, which is assigned a total maximum number of










points. Points and prerequisites vary among categories. See Table 2-5 for listing of points

available per LEED category.

Within each category there are alternatives tied to certain design or performance criteria.

For example, under Water Efficiency, Credit 1.1 has two measures worth one (1) point each.

The first part of this credit states that high efficiency irrigation technology or use of captured rain

water be incorporated in the design to reduce landscaping consumption by 50% over

conventional means. The second part of this credit states that if no potable water is used for

landscaping, an extra point will be awarded. Thus xeroscaping with no water usage will result in

two (2) points towards the projects point total.

Table 2-6 summarizes LEED certified and registered proj ects by LEED certification

program (USGBC 2007). LEED registered proj ects are those proj ects which have paid fees to

register with the USGBC but have not made it through the evaluation stage and have not been

awarded their Einal certification level.

Driving Forces

Why are those functioning as owners of construction proj ects choosing to pursue LEED

certified projects? Current green designers question why owners would choose to design any

other way. "Why would anyone choose to build in a way that isn't comfortable, healthy, and

energy efficient?" (Wilson 2005). Is choice dictated by expectations less comprehensive than

those who choose to pursue green buildings? Are not all owners making assumptions regarding

comfort, health, and energy efficiency? Current research does not address the driving forces that

have caused the increase in interest in high performance buildings.

For those who support high performance buildings, the short and long term rewards, both

for the environment and those who will work in the constructed space, are obvious. However,

owners may also be driven by factors other than environmental or employee health concerns.









Federal or state funded proj ects may be dictated to pursue high performance buildings. Build-to-

own developers may be driven by lower operation costs and greater lease rates. Corporate

buildings or factories are perhaps driven by greater productivity and increased employee

retention. The following summarize perceived benefits of green design.

Business Case for Green

In 2000, the Environment and Public Works Committee of the U. S. Senate convened a

special meeting to bring members of congress, industry, and the U.S. Green Building Council

together to help enlighten those on the hill regarding sustainable construction. The group

produced a report titled "Making the Business Case for High Performance Green Buildings"

(USGBC 2000). The meeting helped educate those with an interest in green building and allowed

discussion about the benefits of core principles of the delivery method. Table 2-7 lists a

summary of the committee's findings:

The report included key case studies for each of the points noted in the summary.

Regarding first costs, the comparison is often made as to which is more expensive--an efficient

car or an inefficient car--the result depending on options, features, and preferences of the car

and the buyer. Construction and design first cost of Johnson Control's LEED-certified office in

Milwaukee was quoted at 10 to 15% less than similar buildings (USGBC 2000).

Although tenants may not directly benefit from the energy savings of sustainable design,

(this depends on how their energy consumption is tied to their lease rate), they will benefit from

churn cost reductions from the use of open floor plans and raised floors. Herman Miller' s

MarketPlace building reports a 66% reduction in churn-related costs. The business case

presented in 2000 bolstered support for pursing integrated sustainable design by illustrating the

'real world' value and cost savings earned by leaders in the property management and production

fields.









First-Cost Benefits

Some city governments have streamlined permitting and approvals (time savings) and

lessened fees (cost savings) for high performance projects. In cities with large construction

volume, such as Chicago, this time savings may be considerable.

Project teams may see benefits and cost synergies throughout the design process. Use of

high efficiency water fixtures may reduce the size and cost of sewage lines throughout the

proj ect. These savings may be used to finance other features in the proj ect or simply lower the

project' s overall cost. In addition, there are frequent savings derived from design decisions that

create additional savings in other systems. For example, changing to a more efficient thermal

glass exterior may lead to a reduction in heating/cooling loads, which, in turn, may reduce duct

lines/size as well as reduce the total size of the conditioning units. Day lighting and open floor

plans may allow for a reduction of materials, and associated costs, for a proj ect. A reduction in

non-structural dividing walls would save in material, labor and time as compared to a traditional

divided space. The DMASC model allows for these tradeoffs to be entered on a credit by credit

basis but does not automatically capture these tradeoffs in terms of cost.

A more environmentally sensitive construction plan may reduce waste processing costs.

During the construction of Rinker Hall at the University of Florida, proj ect managers separated

drywall, metal, and general waste. Waste gypsum was recovered by the drywall supplier at

additional cost; however, the recycled metals were recovered at no cost by a local metal recycler.

Several state and local governments are offering tax credits and other financial incentives

to green developers. States such as New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Oregon are offering

financial incentives to build high performance structures (Wilson 2005).









Building Performance Benefits

Energy and Atmosphere credits account for the largest percentage, 24.6 percent, of the

USGBC category credits. Savings from energy design strategies are often viewed as having the

single most cost-to-benefit ratio as other green strategies. Increased fuel and energy costs will

continue to push the envelope of energy saving design.

The goal of sustainable design is to reduce the amount of energy used to effectively

operate a building. Energy optimization credits account for the largest percentage of points

available for one credit under LEED-NC 2.2.

Lowering water usage is also a mainstay of green design. Water efficiency credits account

for five out of sixty-nine, or 7.4%, possible LEED credits. The USGBC reports commercial

buildings use 12.2% of all potable water, or 15 trillion gallons a year during operation(USGBC

2007). Rinker Hall at the University of Florida incorporates rainwater capture cistern to supply

non-potable plumbing fixtures within the building. In addition the University of Florida has a

greywater supply system running through campus to support irrigation services.

Facility managers and owners are concerned with renovation costs associated with

changing tenets' needs. Design features such as an elevated floor reduce the costs associated

with tenant layout changes. The National Renewable Energy Lab, a 20-thousand square foot

laboratory estimates a $3 5,000 a year savings as a result of using a raised floor system with

regard to annual office design and layout changes(Torcellini, Pless et al. 2006).

Depending on the credits pursued, LEED-designed buildings have an energy savings of 14

to 50% less than conventional buildings. International developer Hines, Inc., is quoted regarding

energy star buildings, "Efficiencies gained from its Energy Star buildings are generating $13

million in annual savings, based on 2000 evaluation (Council 2000)." The energy savings

numbers will increase relative to increased energy costs and demands. An EPA report from 2002










predicts that an Energy Star labeled office building generates a 40% savings over the average

code-built office buildings. Energy Star is a joint program between the United States

Department of Energy and the United States Environmental Protection Agency that identifies

energy efficient designs and practices. Although these savings are significant, integrated

sustainable design incorporating LEED-type models focus on the building and process as a

whole. This is the key difference and advantage of sustainable programs from those similar to

Energy Star.

Health and Productivity Benefits

The USGBC reports that the average American spends between 80 and 90% of the day

indoors. Addressing concerns of indoor environmental quality helps to ensure a healthy and

productive society both in the long and short term.

Companies are seeking to improve their competitive edge in terms of employee

recruitment and retention. Similar to leasing and tenant issues, marketing the space that an

employee will occupy as a healthier (i.e., better indoor air quality and natural lighting) provides

support for attracting and keeping employees. Wilson (Wilson 2005) reports that an accounting

firm, Deloitte and Touche, estimates the cost of recruiting a non-professional worker to be

approximately $12,000 and a professional worker to be $35,000. He also notes that the Families

and Work Institute estimates costs associated with replacing non-managerial staff averages about

75% of the new employee' s annual salary, while managerial costs are twice that at roughly 150%

of an employee's annually salary.

Legal issues regarding mold and sick building syndrome have increased in recent years.

Green building design strives to reduce these concerns by addressing dust, moisture, and

envelope construction throughout the building process. Liability insurance for such instances is

also becoming more expensive.









The ability to control light and temperature for an individual work area, as well as having a

view of outdoors, enhances employee attitude and improve employee performance. It may even

result in higher employee morale, reduced absenteeism, and better productivity.

Costs related to employee salary and productivity far exceeds those of building

construction, climate control, and energy control. The goal for all employers is to maximize

productivity of workers while reducing the costs of housing them. Wilson (Wilson 2005) notes

that costs associated with the average U. S. office building break down as $318 per square foot

for the building space, $50 per square foot for technology, $16 per square foot for mortgage,

$2.35 per square foot for energy, and $1.00 per square foot for churn or tenant renovation. He

also points out that a one percent increase in productivity would more than cover the costs of

energy for a building. This offset for costs is what drives many corporate owners to pursue high

performance designs.

Sustainable Development International cites several success stories regarding productivity

and green design. One example is the Lockheed-Martin $50-million engineering facility, built

with extensive day lighting and energy efficient systems. The result of the design showed a 15

percent increase in productivity with a paralleled 15 percent reduction in absenteeism.

Additionally, the plant saved over $300,000 annually in energy savings. The reduction in

absenteeism alone more than covered the $2,000,000 additional price tag for costs associated

with the high performance design.

School systems are looking to high performance design to add day lighting to improve

learning. In a report submitted to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the Heschong Mahone

Group (Heschong Malone Group 1999) reported a positive correlation between day lighting and

students test performance. Day lighting is typically referred to as the amount of natural task









lighting available in a given space. In the Capistrano School District, students with the most day

lighting advanced 20% faster on math tests and 26% faster on reading tests compared to those

students with the least day lighting.

Increased productivity is often cited as a key benefit of sustainable design although

elements of productivity are difficult to tie directly to particular elements of design. Productivity

gains may also derive from reduced absenteeism. The final form of a building is 'Gestalt-like' in

nature, in that the sum of the building as a whole is more than the sum of its aspects and the

interactions of its users. There are a few case studies that support the notion of increased

productivity. Lockheed Martin's design program for Building 157 in Sunnydale, California,

included substantial natural lighting and a 50% energy savings compared to California's rigorous

energy code. The EPA sites a 15% decrease in employee absenteeism at the 600,000 square foot

plant that employs over 2,500 workers. This drop in absenteeism produced savings that

recovered associated first costs of increased day lighting and other design features within the first

year of operation. William Fisk' s Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory report on indoor

environments and energy efficiency reflects that although there is uncertainty with proving direct

linkages, the potential increases in productivity in the United States results in staggering figures.

"For the United States, the estimated potential annual savings and productivity gains are $6 to

$14 billion from reduced respiratory disease, $1 to $4 billion from reduced allergies and asthma,

$10 to $30 billion from reduced sick building syndrome symptoms, and $20 to $160 billion from

direct improvements in worker performance that are unrelated to health" (Fisk 2000). Reduction

of sick building syndrome also lessons the potential liability of the owner, property management

team, architect, and builder. Sustainable design may lesson the possibility of claims for health-










related problems stemming from a poorly functioning building. These costs are rarely factored

when considering upfront construction dollars.

Environmental Benefits

Environmental benefits associated with green design include: resource conservation, waste

diversion, material selection, and site selection and management. High performance design

stresses reduction in water and electrical needs. These reductions result in less stress imposed

upon municipal supplies and less waste generated compared to standard construction. These

reductions help to lessen the need for greater infrastructure that supports the buildings and the

energy and chemicals used to process waste. Reduction of stormwater runoff and erosion are

also key benefits of high performance design. Techniques such as porous pavement, green roofs,

green swales, and natural vegetative wetlands help to reduce the amount of stormwater and

particles introduced to a municipal waste water system. Reduction of stormwater runoff also

helps to reduce the amount of infrastructure used to transfer and process the water.

An essential aspect of green design is the reduction of the amount of urban sprawl

associated with current trends in U.S. cities' development. Use of land within a developed area

and incorporation of existing mass transit help to reduce the costs tied to sprawl. Sprawl costs

include expansion of municipal services, road construction, and devastation of undeveloped land.

Emphasis is also placed on incorporating alternative fuel vehicles and bicycles as part of

addressing the transportation needs of the tenants.

Urban redevelopment serves to protect undeveloped land, preserve natural resources, and

provide a sense of community to the existing, and perhaps decaying, urban core. New Urbanism

is a movement that stresses the revitalization of and return to city centers after years of suburban

sprawl .









Environmental benefits of high performance design are often cited as those things that sum

the collective good for the planet. The collective good includes reductions in carbon production,

greenhouse gases, increased energy production, and negative impacts on natural and

undeveloped lands. The goals of these designs are to lessen damage to the ozone layer and

lessen man's potential to accelerate dangerous changes to the global climate.

Social Benefits

Social responsibility or stewardship definitions vary among countries, cultures and

communities. For this report portions of the International Organization for Standardization

(ISO) Strategic Advisory Group on Social Responsibility (SAG) derived common definition will

apply (IISD 2004). SAG found that the common elements or threads running through definitions

for social responsibilities include "a balanced approach for organizations to address economic,

social, and environmental issues in a way that aims to benefit people, community, and society."

Social impacts for this report apply to short-term benefits that impact the immediate local

community for which a LEED building is located. Short-term benefits include local jobs during

the construction process, community improvements, increase in neighborhood perceived value,

and access via public transit for local workers to access new LEED facilities. Examples of long-

term benefits of the community might be reduced energy loads of buildings delay the cost

associated with new power plants or how reduced waste streams may negate the costs associated

with the construction of new land fills.

Furthermore, social impacts of LEED credits bear in the mind the influence the built

environment plays in the social well being of individuals and communities. This influence may

be in terms of aesthetic benefits, accessibility, job creation, or municipal infrastructure cost

savings that may be passed on to the community at large. The concept of social equity plays a

large roll within the larger socio-economic views and planks of sustainability. As mentioned









previously the term sustainable is often linked to social imbalance and global equality among

societies. Three credits have direct ties to social impacts. Site selection, with its requirements

for density or community connectivity, support social networks and access to infrastructure

within a community. Alternative transportation credits support access to jobs for those without

means to getting to and from work efficiently. Local and regional material credits support local

businesses that produce goods used in the construction.

In addition to the three credits that directly tie to social benefits, there are social benefits

that are not directly tied to the USGC intent or credit requirements. For example Sustainable

Sites Credit 1 Site Selection main intent was to preserve green space and promote the use of

infill sites. While this is predominantly an environmental credit the use of infill and protection

of green space has a positive social aspect to the individuals that come in contact with the

building site and preserved site.

LEED points are available for incorporating local materials in the construction of the

building. The goal of these points is to reduce the effects of shipping and transporting

construction elements from great distances. Reducing shipping costs, as well as supporting the

local economy, help save transportation fuel, wear on tires, and pollution by shipping vehicles.

Increased property value and increases in the initial proj ect budget may result if green

strategies are incorporated in a project's design. Wilson (Wilson 2005) observed that

"increasing the Net Operating Income (NOI) of a building increases the building's appraised

value by ten times the annual cost savings a capitalization rate (CR) of 10%. For example, a

75,000 sf (7,000 m2) office building that saves $0.50 sf (5/m2) per year in operating costs

($37,500 per year) will see the vale of the building increase by $375,000. A higher building

value (appraisal) can increase the loan amount available from lending institutions."









Tenant retention and initial tenant lease rates are concerns for all owners/developers.

Wilson notes that developer Joe Bellgehem, BuildGreen Developments, successfully marketed

green aspects of his Vancouver Island Technology Park during a time of slow growth for the

technology sector. Arguments for green design and technologies are easily supported, but unless

consumers support developers' efforts, positive inroads to the marketplace may not occur.

Increased positive publicity for cities, companies, builders, and developers is also a

positive by product of building green. National and local positive coverage promotes high

performance design and provides free exposure that may help developers with leasing and

companies with corporate image and sales.

Barriers to Sustainable Design

A paper produced in the Netherlands addresses the central question for expansion of

sustainable practices, including widespread reluctance to accept green design: "To what extent

do institutions in the building and real estate sector form a barrier to the application of

sustainable construction measures that result in a breakthrough?" (van Bueren and Priemus

2002). Discussions as to why sustainable construction practices have been slow to take hold

resulted in two conclusions: 1) institutional barriers have limiting effects, and 2) technical 'know

how' was not a limitation for sustainable uptake.

The impact of construction on the environment in the Netherlands mirrors that of the

impact in the US. Construction and design affect the use of space, consumption of materials, and

depositing of waste. Policymaking focuses on two basic types of models. Financial models

focus on incentives and communicative models focus on policy and guidelines. Institutional

barriers include a vast spectrum of the construction process, from legal regulations to patterns,

habits or traditions of building practices









Policy developments in the Netherlands, similar to those in the US, are substantial and

varied; however, the 'breakthrough' of sustainable construction as common practice has yet to

take place. The primary focus for lack of interest in sustainable practice is placed on the decision

makers in the real estate sector. The phasing at this point is based on the physical design

requirements, legal requirements for zoning, acquisition of land and permits, and building

program requirements. The authors note the "actors" in this stage, and almost every stage, act

according to their own set of rules and traditions in a very fragmented process. This can be seen

in the US as well, where much of sustainable construction has been mandated or pushed upon

builders by "actors" functioning as financiers or owners of the proj ect. There tends to be little

backward or forward feedback during the phases of construction. These are missed opportunities

to move toward more sustainable practices.

Several gaps in the construction process are noted as hindrances to sustainable

construction. These gaps are between the following entities: 1) location development and

building proj ect development, 2) construction and management, 3) construction and use, and 4)

asymmetric distribution of pluses and minuses (i.e., energy cost savings of user versus upfront

cost to the developer). Regarding the 4th gap, van Bueren and Priemus summarized this

financial chasm as follows, "The developer becomes strongly fixated on the investment decisions

related to the development costs of a building and much less on the management and user costs"

(van Bueren and Priemus 2002).

Local Adoption of LEED Programs

Several cities, counties, states, and institutions have adopted LEED-based programs

throughout the US. Nineteen out of 50 (3 8%) states in the U. S. have some form of sustainable

benchmarks in their construction guidelines.










Gainesville and Sarasota

The two cities in Florida that have adopted local incentives for green buildings are

Gainesville and Sarasota. Both plans are similar in that the incentive includes a reduction in

permit fees and an expedited tag placed on their plan review. Sarasota extends their incentive to

include a limit any one builder may receive from permit reductions.

The city of Gainesville's green incentive plan includes fast-track permitting, reduced

permitting fee (50%) and final proj ect designation by the City. The city of Sarasota' s incentive

plan includes fast-track permitting for building permits, reduced building permit fees, totaling 50

percent reduction up to a maximum of $1,000, and up to a maximum of $5,000 per person or

entity and the county has set aside a maximum of $50,000 per year to cover the building permit

fee refunds.

As of March 2006 there were eight certified proj ects in the state of Florida. Table 2-8

designates project and location of these buildings. In addition, there were 63 projects registered

in the state of Florida. Table 2-9 lists these proj ects by owner type to illustrate the decision

makers involved.

As of March 2006, Gainesville accounts for eleven registered buildings while Sarasota

accounts for one. As of spring, 2007 the University of Florida has a mix of 16 certified and

registered proj ects on campus.

Market Trends

The green building movement has seen a steady increase in market share of U. S. non-

residential market since the early 1990's. According to a research conducted by McGraw-Hill

(Construction 2006) in 2004, green building has accounted for approximately two percent of the

non-residential market in the U.S. This number is expected to be between five and ten percent,

or roughly $10 and 20 billion, of the new non-residential market in the U.S. by 2010. Survey










data from this study also shows 85 percent of the architects and engineers surveyed have had

some participation in green building activities and over half, 60 percent, have specified green

products in their designs. Table 2-10 outlines the market identifiers and predicted trends based

on McGraw-Hill research.

This same survey indicated the largest obstacle facing green building is perceived higher

first costs. The most important reasons given for pursing green building are lower operating and

energy costs as well as greater health and well being. The greatest triggers for architectural and

engineering firms to design to green standards are owner demand and owner concerns for energy

costs, plus any potential rebates or incentives.

Florida

As this country's population nears 300 million people, energy consumption and supply will

be dramatically challenged to meet current demand rates. States' economies are dependent on

adequate and dependable supplies of energy. Both new technologies and conservation allow for

greater means of control over energy consumption. Florida currently ranks third nationally in

both population, approximately 18 million in 2005, and in energy consumption. Government

officials estimate over the next few years the state's energy consumption needs may grow nearly

30%. Conservative estimates predict fuel consumption increases from 28 million gallons a day

to over 32 million gallons a day. The 2006 Florida Energy Act provides a four year plan that

holds a $75 million cache for improving energy efficiencies within the state (Energy 2006).

Florida' s energy use is dominated by buildings. Just under half of the energy consumed in

the state (47%) goes for building operations. The other half consists of transportation

consumption at 35% and industry use at 18 % (Center 2006). Building energy use is split almost

evenly between homes (55%) and commercial buildings (45%). Electricity powers over 90% of

the demand.









Air conditioning demands the largest share of demand in building operations, accounting

for between 30 and 45% of total demand. Through the use of current technologies it is believed

that a 30% percent reduction of energy is proven cost-effective, while the most aggressive

strategies may be able to reduce consumption by 75%. Figure 2-2 illustrates average energy

usage by demand for 8000 office buildings in the southeast climate zone (e.g., Atlanta). Typical

energy use is estimated to be 92.6 kBtu/sf (Geshwiler 2003).

Florida Universities and Community Colleges Construction Background

As of 1995 the state's public universities and community colleges have had individual

control over their construction processes with oversight provided by their local board of trustees.

Each institution is responsible for monitoring and reporting their construction needs via capital

improvement plans. Prior to decentralization, the Florida Department of Education staff,

operating under construction policy guidelines adopted by the Board of Regents, made

overriding decisions regarding capital improvement plans for the 11 public universities. The 28

individual community colleges traditionally functioned and continue to function with autonomy,

submitting improvement plans to their local Boards of Trustees.

Currently, the 11 state universities submit their overall capital improvement plans,

including construction costs, to the Board of Governors (BOG), while the community colleges

submit their plans to Division of Community Colleges and Workforce Education. The upper

state divisions use the campus data to develop statewide funding recommendations to the

Department of Education' s K-20 Legislative Capital Outlay Budget Requests. These

recommendations are reviewed and compared to state proj sections for enrollment, space

standards, and current facilities. The overall budget and allocation process is reviewed by

several state level organizations, in conjunction with the Board of Education, Board of

Governors (BOG), and institutions' strategic plans.









The Board of Governors (BOG) is the governing body of the Florida State University

System (SUS). The SUS BOG was established in 2003 by Florida constitutional amendment. It

consists of a 17-member committee, of which 14 members are governor-appointed, and senate

approved. The remaining members consist of the Commissioner of Education, the Chair of the

Advisory Council of Faculty Senates, and the president of the Florida Student Association. This

Board oversees the 11 primary institutions as well as two additional and independent satellite

campuses of the University of South Florida, located on the St. Petersburg and Sarasota/Manatee

campuses. The 11 primary institutions and corresponding student enrollment for academic year

2004-05 are listed in Table 2-11.

Funding for University Projects

Based on a March 2006 report from the Office of Program Analysis and Government

Accountability (OPPAGA), Fiscal Year 2005-2006 funding for public universities and

community college capital outlay proj ects was $743.8 million, which includes construction and

infrastructure projects as well as land acquisitions. According to OPPAGA Public Education

Capital Outlay (OPPAGA 2006), funds are the largest source for postsecondary education fixed

capital outlay projects. The use of PECO funds is limited to academic and academic support

classified projects. Other sources of funding include general revenue, matching donor funds, and

concurrency funds. Concurrency funds are typically used for infrastructure improvements such

as utilities, roads, and drainage. Non-state funds are derived from private funds and student fees.

Student fee money is typically used to support student-related proj ects such as recreation

projects. Additional projects are supported by foundations, boosters, private companies and

individuals who may be approved by the legislature but are not subj ect to legislative oversight or

policy guidelines.









Construction Costs for Postsecondary Projects

Postsecondary education costs tend to run higher than other K-12 education costs for a

number of reasons. The OPPAGA (OPPAGA 2006) cites reasons for the increases as higher

land costs, stricter building codes, and regulations and standards associated with postsecondary

institutions. In addition, university facilities tend to include state-of-the-art technology, and,

depending on the individual university's standards, long-term life schedules for up to 100 years'

usage for a building. Contractors also have to deal with tight construction sites and limited

disruption of ongoing campus activities.

The Florida Department of Education (FDE) lists the breakdown of overall monies spent at

the 11 maj or universities and the 28 supported community colleges. The overall differences in

spending are related to the primary mission or goals of the two types of institutions. Community

colleges do not bear the costs of residence halls and supporting research infrastructure, and

reallocate this spending toward classroom space and vocational laboratories. The OOPAGA

provided data outlined in Table 2-12 as reported in the March 2006 (OPPAGA 2006)report

regarding postsecondary construction costs.

It is important to note that the information reported in Table 2-12 represents only

construction costs based on initial contract awards. Information in Table 2-12 does not include

design and engineering costs and is not reconciled with final proj ect cost data.

UF, FSU, and UCF Cost Comparison

Since the University of Florida is currently the only institution in the state university

system that mandates LEED construction it is of interest to compare its construction costs with

non-LEED mandated institutions. The University of Florida (UF), Florida State University

(FSU), and University of Central Florida (UCF) have similar design programs, serve similar

student bodies, and have similar life-cycle usage plans for their buildings. The difficulty in










comparing building program costs is the limited number of like proj ects with similar

characteristics (i.e., facades, gross square footages), however a cursory view of the data is

worthwhile to demonstrate, at a minimum, that LEED programmed buildings do not differ

greatly in general costs. Table 2-13 provides a comparison of project costs across Florida

campuses.

Although the data in Table 2-13 is limited, it does demonstrate that overall the LEED

process at the University of Florida does not make it the most expensive building program in the

state. In addition for the two UF projects that were pre-LEED mandate included in Table 2-13,

the Whitney Center and Accounting Building, costs were similar to post-LEED mandate costs.

After Gross Square Footage (GSF) cost comparisons are made the typical next question is

with regards to how professional fees are impacted by sustainable design. The previously

discussed Davis-Langdon study illustrates that these costs may be driven by the experience of the

design house rather than the general program requirements of a proj ect. The University of

Florida has gained experience from earlier proj ects for which they would allow additional lines

within the budget for architects and engineers to participate and evaluate LEED processes and

strategies. UF has addressed the issue of professional fees in three ways. One, architect and

engineer firms must have at least two previous LEED certified proj ects within their current

portfolio to be considered for work on campus. Two, professional fees are based on a fee curve

that takes into account previous contract awards, function of the building, and gross square

footage of building. This fee trends at approximately 6.5% plus or minus 1% for most j obs on

campus. The professional fees noted in Table 2-14 include two non-LEED proj ects as well as

two expansion and renovation projects, the law school and library expansion that involved

additional renovation design. In addition, energy modeling and commissioning costs are









included in the professional fees for UF proj ects. Sustainable design processes are considered

part of their general award. The third approach in which UF has curtailed requests for additional

funding from designers is by having staff assume the role of LEED Accredited Professional (AP)

for all jobs. The LEED AP assigns, tracks, and reviews all LEED associated paper work and is

the main contact with for the USGBC regarding LEED registration, LEED submission, and

LEED certification processes.

University of Florida LEED History

The uniqueness of design and construction makes it difficult to compare costs. Location,

owners, contractors, standards, designers, types of contracts, regulations and requirements,

program requirements, and timing all influence the final price of a project. This section focuses

on the University of Florida (UF) experience with LEED. To begin the section will outline

LEED proj ects built within the University of Florida system over the past ten years and describes

how the processes has developed into being a national leader in the field of integrated sustainable

construction.

In 2001, the leadership within Facilities and Planning Department at the University of

Florida, with support from the University President' s Office and various campus wide groups,

adopted the USGBC's LEED based standards for all construction proj ects with budgets greater

than one million dollars. This bold initiative was based on a conviction that integrated

sustainable design offers more than mere energy saving, rather it is a system based, third party

verification, and environmentally sensitive means, both in terms of external and internal design

considerations, of delivering a sound product with a long life cycle. These sustainable concepts

were an extension of already existing practices with the planning department but with leadership

and staff' s personal commitment the LEED evaluation process raised the bar in terms of design









deliverables and processes. Table 2-15 lists the projects that are registered with USGBC on the

UF's campus along with their corresponding size in gross square footage (gsf).

UJF's plan of adoption followed means outlined in several texts regarding change and

uptake of sustainable processes. The Sustainable Building Technical Manual suggests the

following benchmarks be established for initial review of the process:

* Establish vision statement that embraces sustainable principles and an integrated design
approach. The project team should articulate a vision statement that will support and
enforce sustainable goals throughout the project.

* Establish the proj ect' s green building goals developed from the vision statement.

* Establish green design criteria

* Set priorities for the proj ect design.

Crucial to this process is a vision statement that is accepted and supported throughout the

entire project' s design and construction cycle. Integrated sustainable delivery differs from other

forms of construction models in that it requires from designers to break away from their

traditional form of linear design and to communicate and adopt an integrated form of design.

Over the past six years UF's planning department has transitioned from explaining LEED

criteria to designers and contractors to demanding a history of LEED proj ects to qualify to be

short-listed for review. This emphasizes the inroads sustainable techniques have had on the

construction industry in Florida as well as the ability for the University to influence positive

change in its local building trades. UF's team made a strong and clear commitment to educate

and train all parties involved regarding the LEED process. This took a dedicated and educated

staff in the planning department to push for others to adopt and adapt to the new processes. The

Sustainable Building Technical Manual emphasizes the design team selection as follows:

* Create a design and construction team that utilizes the whole-building integrated design
approach.










* Develop a Statement of Work (SOW) and a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), in
preparation for hiring appropriate design professionals.

* Select a team leader and encourage communication and integration among team members.

* Determine the most appropriate method for contractor selection, given the proj ect goals.

Through this process UF's planning department has developed several tools to track and

manage the LEED process. These tools aid in assigning Credit responsibility among team

members and recommendations for credit achievability. The University's process is similar to

that outlined in the GSA application guide. Figure 2-3 outlines UF's LEED process. Although

UF has been practicing sustainable construction for some time the Facilities and Planning

Department serve their individual owner groups (i.e., colleges or schools which are receiving a

new building) and as such struggle with educating these groups as to the value of LEED credits.

In essence the university benefits from a non-traditional green design, maximizes no-cost credits,

and seeks to educate users groups as to the benefits of moderately costly credits. As Figure 2-3

illustrates costing points and searching for no-cost credits takes precedent over applicability of

credits.

Cost Impact of LEED Credits

Currently the University of Florida is in the process of analyzing cost impacts per LEED

credit with regard to a proj ects overall budget. Previously this information was not collected on

a credit by credit basis across proj ects. Most professional fees associated with LEED such as

energy modeling and commissioning were part of the university's building program prior to

LEED uptake and are not considered additional costs. In addition, LEED documentation

processing is now processed by staff as part of their internal proj ect management responsibilities

and is not charged as an additional cost to LEED proj ects. UF considers LEED credit costs as










part of the building program and LEED processes and analyzing tradeoffs has become standard

practice.

Cost estimates for my study were based on three sources: 1) Conceptual estimates and

proven costs based on UF Facility and Planning experience with over 16 proj ects, 2) the GSA

LEED Cost Study (GSA 2004), and 3) the Indian Health Services (IHS) LEED Cost Evaluation

Study (IHS 2006). As mentioned previously he GSA estimates were conducted by the Steven

Winter group and submitted and reviewed by the GSA analyzed the cost impacts and tradeoffs of

LEED credits associated with two traditional GSA produced buildings, a 262,000 gross square

foot (gsf) courthouse and a typical mid-rise modernization of a 306,000 gsf federal building.

While the building types differ from a traditional campus style buildings the square footage costs

fit within the range of a campus building types and the cost for much of the points is similar in

their impact compared to typical commercial building construction.

My study initially categorized cost impacts in similar fashion as the GSA study

incorporated. Mandated program cost, those items required regardless of seeking LEED

certification, and "No Cost" items are assigned LEED Cost Values (LCV) of I and 2 respectively

while cost increases directly related to LEED prerequisites are assigned values between 3 and 5

depending on their cost impacts between $50,000 dollars and over $150,000 dollars respectively.

Cost impacts are assigned a value based on their estimated cost. The values are outlined in Table

2-16.

Throughout this chapter each individual prerequisite and credit cost impacts will be noted

by individually. Case studies will be included where applicable. The LCV values are noted on

the individual credit estimate sheets to provide background information for proj ect specific









conceptual estimates. The LCV scores served as an initial evaluation tool to compare UF's

experience with those of the GSA study and IHS study.

Evaluation of LEED Prerequisites

The LEED standard is comprised of seven prerequisites that are required in order to submit

a proj ect for LEED certification. The cost associated with these prerequisites, as with other

credits as well, is highly dependent on the variance between existing design and building

requirements of the local authority and LEED requirements. One of the limitations to the costing

node of the model is that all prerequisites are adopted as building standards for all proj ects

during Phase I of the model. This acceptance is necessary to achieve LEED certification and as

such is considered a non-cost for the Phase II cost portion of the model. The seven prerequisites

are as follows:

* Sustainable Sites
o Prerequisite 1 Construction Activity Prevention

* Energy and Atmosphere
0 Prerequisite 1 Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems
o Prerequisite 2 Minimum Energy Performance
0 Prerequisite 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management

* Materials and Resources
o Prerequisite 1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables

* Indoor Environmental Quality
0 Prerequisite 1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Performance
0 Prerequisite 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control

To provide a context for the evaluation of LEED prerequisites the topic of cost anchoring

is discussed next. In addition a case study examining additional versus traditional costs is noted.

Cost Anchoring and Adjusting

Anchoring in decision processes vernacular refers to the process by which informal

guesses are taken when estimating an amount (Beach and Connolly 2005). The difficulty with









anchoring is that unless the person doing the estimating has valid concrete experiences with

estimating whatever that is being evaluated is that the "guess" number is typically incorrect if not

way off. Due to the amount of press and types of cost data provided, as noted in this chapter,

costs for green design range anywhere from an initial cost savings to greater than 10% over

conventional construction techniques. Cost mentioned informally at the county budget meeting

referenced at the introduction of this chapter ranged as high as 30%. The DMASC decision

model allows for credit consideration and cost to be separated where as not to influence the

decision process until the final ranking. Should cost be the overriding factor it may be

considered but the strength of the process is to evaluate the credits without cost anchoring

influencing the process.

One of the main reasons for the range in sustainable cost estimates is the fact that they

studies do not account for standard program embedded costs. For example, both fundamental

and enhanced commissioning was considered standard practice at the University of Florida prior

to the adoption of their LEED mandate. As such these costs are not considered as "adds" to their

proj ect budget. The GSA has a rather progressive building standard, as does the IHS, so the two

study overall impacts do not include items already included in their base programs. Figure 2-4

illustrates the relationship between building standards and LEED first costs.

An example of examining LEED costs is the case of the North Boulder Recreation Center

which earned a LEED Silver certification in March 2003 (Colorado 2003). The North Boulder

recreation center tracked costs associated with achieving their LEED Silver rating. Table 2-17.

list the LEED associated costs for the recreation center.

The big ticket items with regard to construction costs was $256,000 for a solar water

system that pre-heats water for the recreation swimming pools, $32,000 for higher efficient









boilers, $7,400 for additional commissioning, and $157,300 for additional material costs across

the achieved credits. The point of examining this case is to examine the non-construction

upgrade costs. The energy modeling costs ($33,000), commissioning costs ($24,300 plus

$7,400), and integrated design consultant costs ($15,450) are considered extras for the city of

Boulder but not so currently at the University of Florida. Although UF initially provided line

items in budgets for accounting for similar costs on their first green buildings they no longer do

so. Energy modeling and commissioning were considered part of the design standard prior to

LEED and expected on all buildings pre and post the adoption of the LEED mandate. There is

no longer an integrated design consultant assigned to proj ects at the University of Florida.

Architects, engineers, and contractors must have two prior LEED jobs completed to be short-

listed to work on UF proj ects. In addition LEED processing is assigned to the UF Facility and

Planning staff to handle in-house.

Florida Code and LEED Prerequisites

Florida Building Code 2004 is based primarily on the incorporation of the following codes:

* National and International Codes:
0 International Building Code 2003 edition
0 International Plumbing Code 2003 edition
0 International Mechanical Code ,2003 edition
0 International Fuel Gas Code 2003 edition
0 International Residential Code 2003 edition
o International Existing Building Code 2003 edition
0 National Electrical Code 2002 edition
0 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers'
(ASHRAE) Standard 90.1-2001

* State and Local Codes
o Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction
0 Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction
0 Special hurricane protection standards for the high-velocity hurricane zone.









The USGBC references the following codes with regard to various credits and

prerequisites relating to building codes and practices:

* 2003 EPA Construction General Permit

* Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide, EPA/600/R-04/121A, September
2004

* ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 2004, Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential:
0 Section 5 Building Envelope
0 Section 6 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditions (HVAC)
o Section 7 Service Water Heating
0 Section 8 Power (including all building power distribution)
o Section 9 Lighting (without amendments)
o Section 10 Other Equipment (all permanently wired electrical motors)
o Appendix G Performance Rating Method (Energy Modeling)

* ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guide for Small Office Buildings 2004

* ASHRAE Standard 62. 1-2004: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality

* ASHRAE Standard 55-2004, Thermal Comfort Conditions for Human Occupancy

* ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2-1999: Method of Testing General Ventilation Air-Cleaning Devices
for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size

* The Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992 (Plumbing Standard)

* International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Volume III:
Concepts and Options for Determining Energy Savings in New Construction, April 2003

* IAQ Guidelines for Occupied Buildings Under Construction

* EPA "Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Air Pollutants in Indoor Air"

The USGBC requires only three specific proj ect standards to meet LEED prerequisites.

Should a prerequisite not be met then the proj ect would not receive LEED certification.

Table 2-18 lists the LEED prerequisites that have an associated reference standard. The USGBC

does allow for the incorporation of local standards should they be more stringent than the stated

reference standards.









Sustainable Site Prerequisite

The intent of the Sustainable Site Prerequisite 1 regarding erosion and sedimentation

control is to reduce the negative impacts on water and air quality on and surrounding the

construction site. The requirements involve designing erosion and sedimentation control plan

that meets or exceeds the 2003 EPA Construction General Permit, or local erosion control

standards, whichever is more stringent regardless of proj ect size. The USGBC lists the

obj ectives of the plan as follows:

* Prevent loss of soil during construction by stormwater runoff and/or wind erosion,
including protecting topsoil by stockpiling for reuse.

* Prevent sedimentation of storm sewer or receiving streams.

* Prevent polluting the air with dust and particulate matter.

This is a good example of a prerequisite or credit that may be of no cost should the local

authority meet or exceed the EPA standard. This credit is considered to have a LEED Cost

Value (LCV) of one since this has become standard practice at university main campuses in the

state.

Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 1 Fundamental Commissioning

Prerequisite 1 Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning of the Energy and

Atmosphere category focuses on verifying that fundamental building systems are designed,

installed and operating as intended. The USGBC outlines the requirements as follows:

* Designate an independent experienced individual as the Commissioning Authority (CxA)
to lead, review and oversee the completion of the commissioning process activities.

* The Owner shall document the Owner' s Proj ect Requirements (OPR) and the Design team
shall develop the Basis of Design (BOD).

* The team shall develop and incorporate commissioning requirements into the construction
documents.










* Develop and implement a commissioning plan.

* Verify the installation and performance of the systems to be commissioned.

* Complete a summary commissioning report.

The USGBC stresses the importance of having the following minimum energy-related

systems included in the plan and final report:

* Heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVAC and R) systems
(mechanical and passive and associated controls.

* Lighting and daylighting controls.

* Domestic hot water systems.

* Renewable energy systems.

Commissioning tends to be the most costly and debated of all the prerequisites if it is

currently not part of the local building program. From an owner' s perspective questions arise as

to the need for having an additional party involved in checking other professional's work, and

Contractors echo similar sentiments along with issues relating to documenting and meeting

additional burdens placed on them as a result of the commissioning plan. Owner' s currently

incorporating various levels of commissioning site the complexity of systems, lack of Contractor

quality control with regard to checking systems, and cost savings of having a properly

functioning building as driving forces in favor for some level of commissioning. The

commissioning industry reports benefits that include:

* Improved building system control and performance
* Improved indoor air quality, occupant comfort, and productivity
* Decreased potential for owner liability
* Studies show an annual energy savings of between 15 and 30 percent
* Early detection of potential problems

For the University of Florida this prerequisite has a LCV of one since commissioning was

part of the building program prior to the uptake of LEED. For building programs that currently









do not incorporate commissioning the cost ranges are considered considerable by many

professionals not convinced of the overall commissioning process value. The Portland Energy

Conservation, Inc. (PEC) (Portland Energy Conservation 2002), provides guidelines with regard

to the cost associated with commissioning. Table 2-19 outlines commissioning costs based on

phase or construction elements. The general rule sited by the PEC is that commissioning will

run between 0.6 and 1.8% of the overall construction costs of a project. Using a construction

budget of $7 million for an average campus school building as an example the commission fee

would range between $42,000 and $126,000. For programs not including this as a base program

costs, this would earn this prerequisite a LCV of 3 for Fundamental Commissioning required to

meet this prerequisite or LCV of 4 for enhanced commissioning services related to Energy and

Atmosphere Credit 3.

The GSA reports that fundamental commissioning runs approximately $0.75 to $1.00 per

gross square foot (GSF) with more comprehensive commissioning costing slightly higher than

that range. Since commissioning is considered a GSA standard the GSA report does not include

commissioning as an increase cost to subscribe to LEED standards. This does not mean that it is

'free.' Using the GSA suggested costs for the base courthouse it would have been an additional

a dollar extra for each square foot and would result in a cost impact of $262,000.00. Given the

$57,640,000.00 total construction cost budget, the overall impact to as a percentage would have

been a 0.5% cost increase to the total construction budget. UF's Facilities Department confirms

the cost for the prerequisite commissioning and Energy and Atmosphere Credit 3 combined is

approximately $0.75 per gross square foot.










Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 2 Minimum Energy Performance

Prerequisite 2 Minimum Energy Performance of the Energy and Atmosphere category

focuses on establishing and meeting minimum energy requirements based on ASHRAE/IESNA

Standard 90. 1-2004.

For the University of Florida this was a no cost item since this standard applied prior to the

adoption of LEED standards and as been amended as ASHRAE has updated its standard.

According to university staff and contracts energy modeling at costs has remained steady at

$0.25 per gross square foot on recent proj ects. For university campuses not incorporating this

standard the additional costs would have to be compiled by an engineering service familiar both

with the current standard and the LEED applied ASHRAE/IESNA standard.

Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 3 CFC Reduction in HVAC and R Equipment

Prerequisite 3 CFC Reduction in HVAC and R Equipment of the Energy and Atmosphere

category focuses on zero use of CFC-based refrigerants in HVAC and R systems. Should a

proj ect be reusing equipment then a complete CFC phase-out conversion plan is required.

In the United States CFC-based refrigerants are no longer available as options for new

equipment. This has a LCV of 1 being a no cost option.

Materials and Resources Prerequisite 1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables

Storage and Collection of Recyclables Prerequisite 1 of the Materials and Resources

category focuses on providing means and space for recyclables. The intent of this prerequisite is

to reduce tenant generated waste that would be disposed of by traditional means (i.e., landfills).

Designers must coordinate the size of the recycled area based on the square footage of the overall

building. Most government institutions require or support recycling efforts and as such this is

minimal or no cost prerequisite.









Recycling mandates across campus support and insist on recycling efforts be conducted on

campuses. The size requirements and design efforts are not a burden with regard to cost and

meet the overall design program of most campus buildings.

Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 1

Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 1 regarding Minimum IAQ Performance

focuses on providing adequate indoor air quality that will support tenant productivity and

comfort. The USGBC outlines the minimum requirements as meeting Sections 4 through 7 of

ASHRAE 62.1-2004, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. In addition, mechanical

ventilation systems shall be designed using the Ventilation Rate Procedure or the applicable local

code, whichever is more stringent. For naturally ventilated buildings ASHRAE 62.1-2004,

paragraph 5.1, shall apply.

The cost associated with this prerequisite is largely dependent on current local standards

and the experience and familiarity of the designers with the applicable ASHRAE standards.

Should local standards already incorporate these types of requirements then it should be no

additional costs; for those unfamiliar with the standards there may be initial learning curve cost

associated with design.

Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke

Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 2 regarding Environmental Tobacco Smoke

(ETS) Control is probably the most diverse prerequisite in that designers are given choices

regarding conditions that satisfy the requirement. The intent of the standard is to limit or

minimize the building occupants, surfaces, and ventilation system to tobacco smoke. The

USGBC lists three options that will meet the intent of this prerequisite:

OPTION 1

*Prohibit smoking in building.











* Locate any exterior designated smoking areas at least 25 feet away from entries, outdoor
air intakes and operable windows.

OPTION 2

* Prohibit smoking in the building except in designated smoking areas

* Locate any exterior designated smoking areas at least 25 feet away from entries, outdoor
air intakes and operable windows.

* Locate designated smoking rooms to effectively contain, capture and remove ETS from the
building. At a minimum, the smoking room must be directly exhausted to the outdoors
with no re-circulation of ETS-containing air to the non-smoking area of the building, and
enclosed with impermeable deck-to-deck partitions. Operate exhaust to create negative air
pressures with regard to adj acent spaces.

* Performance of the smoking room differential air pressures shall be verified by conducting
measurements of the differential pressure in the smoking room with respect to each
adj acent area and in each adj acent vertical chase with the doors to the smoking room
closed.

OPTION 3 (For residential buildings only)

* Prohibit smoking in all common areas of the building.

* Locate any exterior designated smoking areas at least 25 feet away from entries, outdoor
air intakes and operable windows opening to common areas.

* Minimize uncontrolled pathways for ETS transfer between individual residential units by
sealing penetrations in walls, ceilings, and floors in the residential units, and by sealing
vertical chases adj acent to the units.

* All doors leading to common hallways shall be weather-stripped to minimize air leakage
into the hallway, unless properly pressurized with respect to residential units. Testing and
sampling per ANSI/ASTM-E779-03, Standard Test Method for Determining Air Leakage
Rate by Fan Pressurization, is required to meet this option.

The maj ority of institutional and government buildings are designated no-smoking and

meet Option 1 above at no additional design or equipment costs and is assigned a LCV of 1. For

buildings selection Option 2 or 3 a takeoff of additional equipment, design effort, and testing

requirements would have to be included as an additional cost over base design.










Separation of Preference and Cost

The unique aspect of the USGBC LEED criteria is that there is no single way to meet any

of the certification levels. Similarly, designers, within code limits, may produce any number of

versions of a building that meet the program goals set forth by the owner. Contractors are often

given plans and a sum of money and are left to their own experience to develop a successful

proj ect schedule and means to achieve the schedule. Sustainable integrated design, in particular

those pursuing third party certification (e.g. LEED accreditation), in effect require that designers

and contractors meet basic prescriptive program design and proj ect delivery requirements.

Overall design and construction cost impacts are heavily influenced by local design standards

concurrency with sustainable standards, contractor methods, site selection, and points pursued

throughout the certification processes. During the integrated design process seeking low-cost

LEED points tends to override the applicability of the points to the proj ect and the owner' s

original program goals. The focus of this chapter is to develop a method for local decision

makers, both in supervisory and direct construction roles, to evaluate their current building

delivery system, establish preferences for more sustainable practices, and determine the impact

these preferences have in achieving LEED certification.

Sustainable ideals transform the way in which buildings are delivered and the way in

which design considerations are evaluated. As discussed previously sustainable delivery

methods require designers at all levels to communicate and integrate their design responsibilities.

Likewise traditional monetary evaluation methods, such as Return-On-Investment, net-present

value, rate of return, and payback, need to be expended to include non-financial characteristics,

such as the value of better indoor air quality and daylight, which are require judgment to

monetize. Qualitative impacts may be too costly to quantify, or impossible to determine, but

their impact in a building program may be obvious. Because of the difference in nature in









evaluating these characteristics a method for evaluating the combined impacts of these criteria is

needed. My study looks to the Hield of multiattribute decision analysis (MADA) for methods to

accommodate non-monetary benefits and costs (Norris and Marshall 1995). MADA type

decision models are best suited for decisions involving a generally small set of discrete variables

such as certification checklists. In addition the overall methodology/study design borrows from

work that evaluated the cost-benefits of selecting data management systems (Su, Dujmovic et al.

1987). This model serves the following primary goals:

* Provides a mathematically based theory for evaluating sustainable criteria

* Provides a systematic method for deriving decisions

* Provides an evaluation technique for incorporating both cost data and decision maker' s
preferences

Current building methods are typically evaluated periodically by facility personnel and

various identities associated with campus planning and construction. Changes to construction

methods typically do not occur unless there is a perceived need to make improvements to the

global performance level. Once the decision is made that there is a need to upgrade the existing

global performance levels the organization then moves to the analysis phase and goal

identification. Examples of improvement with regard to more sustainable building methods

might be the inclusion of LEED criteria for all construction proj ects, greater energy performance,

or reduced water consumption.

In addition to identifying the goals for an improved system, a thorough review of estimated

resources needed to carry out the changes would have to take place. This review would have to

examine the affects the shift in methods would have on infrastructure and personnel associated

with the improved methods. Should it be decided that the new goals fall inline with the program

assessment then the decision to change to a more sustainable program is made.









At this point the organization is faced with myriad decisions regarding how to implement

change. The organization may stress energy performance of their building as the key to their

improved system. It may decide worker productivity be emphasized. It may be obvious that first

costs for design and construction are the limiting factors overriding all other sustainable goals.

Both preference impact and cost must be considered to determine the best alternative.











LEED Criteria


Outcomes


Figure 2-1. Relationship between LEED alternatives and outcomes



























68


Sustainable Sites


Water Efficiency


Energy and
Atmosphere


Materials and
Resources


Indoor
Environmental
Quality


Building
Performance


Environment



Social




Occupant Health


















Other
26% .:;: Lighting
:36%

Space heating
12% ; water heating
4%
Space cooling
14% \Ventilation
8%


Figure 2-2. Building demand for average southeast commercial building











Step 1:
Evaluate LEED Prerequisites



Step 2:
Evaluate "UF Recommended"
Credits


I


Step 8:
Establish Initial LEED
Approach for Proj ect


Step 3:
Evaluate Non-applicable
Credits


Step 4:
Evaluate No Cost and Low
Cost Credits


Step 5:
Review LEED Scorecard after
Initial Considerations
Steps 1-4


Step 6:
Evaluate Moderate and High
Cost Credits


Step 7B:
Review Synergistic and
Integrated Design Tradeoffs


Figure 2-3. University of Florida LEED credit evaluation steps





High Cost ($$$)










Low Cost ($)


High Performance
St andar ds


Traditional Standards


LEED First Cost Eznparcts




Figure 2-4. LEED first cost impacts based on building standards










Table 2-1. Initial capital construction costs for IHS LEED proj ects
Certified Silver
LEED Construction cost
impacts Low High Low High

Cost impact $170,700 $507,900 $589,700 $1,268,500
$/Gross Square Foot $2.01 $5.98 $6.95 $14.94
% Change 1.0% 3.0% 3.5% 7.9%


Table 2-2. USGBC Sample cost data
Design Effort and
Hard Costs


Documentation Costs


No
Added
Cost


No add for
Exemplary
Design


Learning
Curve
Reduce


Design
Effort


Hard
Costs
E
E
E


Doc.
Costs


Alternative
SSCredit 1
SSCredit 2
SSCredit 4.1

SSPrereq 1
SSCredit 4.4

SSCredit 6. 1

SSCredit 7. 1

SSCredit 8


Site
Density
Alternative
Transportation
Pollution
Alternative
Transportation
Storm
Quantity
Heat Island
Non-Roof
Light


+ $

++ $

++ $


Table 2-3. LEED criteria development
Year
1994/1995
1998
2000
2004
2005


LEED Criteria
Pass/Fail Criteria
LEED 1.0 Pilot Program
LEED 2.0
LEED 2.1
LEED 2.2









Table 2-4. LEED certification levels
Certification Level
Certified
Silver
Gold
Platinum


Points
26 to 32
33 to 38
39 to 51
52 or more


Table 2-5. LEED 2.2 rating system points per category
Category Number of alternatives
Water Efficiency 3
Material and Resources 7
Sustainable Sites 8
Indoor Environment 8
Energy and Atmosphere 6
Subtotal :
Design Innovation and 2
LEED Professional:
Total :
(USGBC 2007)


Table 2-6. LEED certified and registered proj ects
Proj ect New Commercial
Level Construction Interiors
Registered 4.572 579


Number of possible points
5
13


Exi sting
Building
356
42


Core and
Shell
478
29


Total

5,985
781


Certified


600










Table 2-7. Business case for high performance green buildings summary
1. In The event up-front costs are higher for high performance green buildings, they
can be recovered.

2. Integrated design lowers ongoing operating costs.

3. Better buildings equate to better employee productivity.

4. New technologies enhance health and wellbeing.

5. Healthier buildings can reduce liability.

6. Tenants' costs can significantly be reduced.

7. Property value will increase.

8. Many financial incentive programs are available.

9. Communities will notice your efforts.

10. Using best practices yields more predictable results.


Table 2-8. Florida LEED certified proj ects location and award level
Happy Feet Plus Clearwater Gold
Stetson University DeLand Certified
University of Florida-Gainesville Campus Gainesville Gold
University of Florida Gainesville Campus Gainesville Certified
Navy Federal Credit Union Pensacola Gold
Sarasota County Government Sarasota Gold
Whole Foods Market Sarasota Silver
Sarasota County Government Sarasota Gold

Table 2-9. Number of Florida LEED registered proj ects by owner type
Federal Government 8
Local Government 12
Nonprofit Corporation 7
Other 9
Profit Corporation 21
State Government 6
Total 63































12,179
25,704
7,264
36,975
39,652
762
44,953
49,725

15,353
43,021
9,701
285,289


1,618 658
7,910 2,143
1,239 634
50,093 13,841


Under Under-
graduate Graduate class Total Percent


Table 2-10. Impacts of green building by survey respondents
Market Identifier Predicted Trend
Operating costs Decrease operating costs between 8.0 and
9.0 % across the industry.


Building values


Average increase in value expected to be
approximately 7.5 %


Return-on-investment (ROI)


On average, to improve to 6.6 %


Occupancy ratio


Increase by 3.5 %


Rent ratio


Expected to rise by 3.0 % on average.


Table 2-11. Florida university enrollment for 2004-05


University
Florida Agricultural and Mechanical
University, Tallahassee
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton
Florida Gulf Coast University, Ft. Myers
Florida International University, Miami
Florida State University, Tallahassee
New College of Florida, Sarasota
University of Central Florida, Orlando
University of Florida, Gainesville
University of North Florida,
Jacksonville
University of South Florida, Tampa
University of West Florida, Pensacola
Total state university system


4.3%
9.0%
2.5%
13.0%
13.9%
0.3%
15.8%
17.4%

5.4%
15.1%
3.4%
100.0%


10,372
19,951
5,978
28,406
30,418
761
37,568
34,028

13,077
32,968
7,828
221,355


1,529
3,386
762
5,085
7,926
0
6,328
14,310


278
2,367
524
3,484
1,308
1
1,057
1,378









Table 2-12. Florida' s post-secondary construction costs based on 2004 data
National Low National National High Florida
National Quartile Median Quartile Median
Building Median Total Cost/Square Cost/Square Cost/Square Cost/Square
Type Cost Foot Foot Foot Foot (2004)
Academic $8,000,000 $129.09 $172.82 $221.11 $148.73
Library $16,000,000 $191 .48 $23 5.29 $326.62 $152.58
Office $6,500,000 $107.64 $138.44 $235.29 $155.11
Science $20,000,000 $201.83 $240.00 $294.05 $183.99









Table 2-13. Comparison of proj ect costs on Florida campuses
Florida State University

Prqj ect Bid Date Build Type Total Budget GSF Cost/GSF
College of
Medicine May-03 Research $60,246,450 299,092 $201
Communications
Building Apr-02 Teaching $32,970,968 163,518 $202
Psychology Oct-04 Research $49,819,662 184,679 $270
Classroom Facility Sep-05 Class $22,636,289 88,000 $257
Chemi stry
Building Sep-05 Research $53,939,705 168,063 $321

University of Central Florida

Prqj ect Bid Date Build Type Total GSF Cost/GSF
Alumni Center
(FairWinds) Aug-04 Office $4,959,864 17,983 $276
Psychology Jul-05 Office $14,136,600 76,257 $185
Student Health
Center Aug-04 Office $6,500,000 48,725 $133

University of Florida

Prqj ect Bid Date Build Type Total GSF Cost/GSF
Orthopaedic
Surgery Jan-03 Research $26,929,411 120,000 $224
*Accounting
Classroom
Building Jan-02 Class $9,063,800 51,089 $177
Library West Nov-03 Library $30,942,207 177,000 $175
Law Info Center Jan-03 Library $25,328,042 132,620 $191
*Whitney Center
for Marine Studies Feb-05 Teaching $3,152,300 19,750 $160


with asterisk (*) are pre-LEED mandated


Note: University of Florida projects highlighted
proj ects.









Table 2-14. Comparison of professional fee percentage across campuses
Florida State University
Percent of Total
Proj ect GSF Professional Fees Budget
College of Medicine 299,092 $4,091,788 6.8%

Communications Building 163,518 $2,397, 105 7.3%
Psychology 184,679 $2,830,000 5.7%
Classroom Facility 88,000 $1,074,301 4.7%
Chemistry Building 168,063 $4,789,312 8.9%
Average 6.7%

University of Central Florida
Percent of Total
Proj ect GSF Professional Fees Budget

Alumni Center (FairWinds) 17,983 $307,208 6.2%
Psychology 76,257 $776,660 5.5%

Student Health Center 48,725 $238,372 3.7%
Average 5.1%

University of Florida
Percent of Total
Proj ect GSF Professional Fees Budget
Orthopaedic Surgery 120,000 $2,507,458 9.3%
*Accounting Classroom
Building 51,089 $789,700 8.7%
Library West 177,000 $1,910,890 6.2%
Law Info Center 132,620 $2,049,745 8.1%
*Whitney Center for Marine
Studies 19,750 $215,100 6.8%
Average 7.8%


projects highlighted with asterisk (*) are pre-LEED mandated


Note: University of Florida
proj ects.









Table 2-15. University of Florida green building stock


Building Gross Square Footage (gsf)
Band Building 11,263
Baseball Lockers 15,000
Biomedical Science 163,000
Cofrin-Harn Pavilion (LEED Certified) 19,240
Genetics/Cancer Research 280,000
Hub Renovation 53,000
IFAS 5,550
Law Library 132,620
Library West 177,000
McGuire Center (LEED Certified) 54,000
Nanoscience Institute 53,000
Powell Structures Lab (LEED Certified) 8,565
Pugh Hall 45,000
Rinker Hall (LEED Gold) 46,530
Sports Medicine (LEED Certified) 119,105
Stadium Expansion 49,000
Veterinary Facility 11,900
Total gsf 1,208,443


Table 2-16. LEED cost values (LCV)
Cost Impact Category Value
University mandate (part of existing building program) 1
No or Minor cost (<$500) / Potential savings 2
Low cost impact (<$50 K) 3
Moderate cost impact ($50K $150K) 4
High cost impact (>$150K) 5


Table 2-17. Associated LEED costs for North Boulder Recreation Center
Items required to achieve LEED Item Cost
LEED registration $750
LEED certification $1,500
Integrated design consultant $15,450
Energy modeling $33,000
Commissioning $24,300
Total cost of construction/equipment upgrades $461,700
Total $536,700
Total % (as percent of the $1 1.6 million proj ect budget) 4.6%

























Table 2-19. Construction phase commissioning costs


Table 2-18. LEED prerequisite standards
LEED Prerequisite
Sustainable Sites Construction Activity
Pollution Prevention

Energy and Atmosphere Minimum Energy
Performance

Indoor Environmental Quality (IAQ) -
Minimum IAQ Performance


Referenced Standard
2003 EPA Construction General Permit


ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004
(referenced sections)

ASHRAE 62.1-2004 (referenced sections)


Commissioning System
HVAC and controls
Electrical system
HVAC, controls, and electrical


Commissioning Cost
2.0% to 3.0% of total mechanical system
1.0% to 2.0% of total electrical system
0.5% to 1.5% of total construction costs









CHAPTER 3
DECISION MODEL METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The Decision Model for Assessment of Sustainable Construction (DMASC) outlined in

Figure 3-1 provides a systematic approach for determining cost impacts associated with adopting

sustainable building processes and techniques. The model consists of three main phases. Phase I

address the institutional-wide analysis of traditional construction and building methods,

institutional resources, and rationales for seeking a change to sustainable methods. Phase II

presents the Logical Scoring of Preferences (LSP) portion of the model. Phase III involves the

final decision making portion of the model. The model establishes program requirements; in this

case United States Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Environmental and Energy

Design (LEED)-NC 2.2, then splits the decision processes into separate cost and preference

analysis, and finally combines both evaluation methods into a single cost preference analysis

phase.

Current Building Method

Current building delivery methods and standards vary throughout the state. With regard to

university construction programs each has its own building standard. Building standards are

periodically evaluated for such things as code compliance, construction material trends and

availability, and technological fit. A key difference between the University of Florida's (UF)

LEED based standards and other campus standards throughout the state is that UF's Building

Standard provides a mandate for LEED certification. Other institutions, such as the University

of Central Florida (UCF) list sustainable practices as recommended or suggested practices where

practical. The DMASC model provides institutions a systematic framework to review current

standards.









Existing Delivery Method Performance Evaluation

University personnel provide architects, designers, engineers, and contractors with

building standards or guidelines that describe the requirements and preferences that apply to all

university projects. These guidelines typically state that the designers are to incorporate

applicable portions of the guide into contract documents (i.e., contract drawings and

specifications). In turn, contractors are to follow prescriptive guidelines during the course of a

proj ect. These guidelines generally provide a caveat that allows for modifications and

clarifications to guidelines when opportunities for change and or conflicts among professionals

anise.

In addition designers and builders must comply with various life-safety codes, building

codes, and policy requirements of the university staff. Similarly, the USGBC requires that

certain prerequisites be met per the designated prescriptive standards or methods. These

prerequisites are similar to adhering to ADA requirements or fire codes in that require an

understanding of the design intent and a fulfillment of design or performance standard. An

example of such a prerequisite would be the Sustainable Sites Prerequisite 1: Construction

Activity Pollution Prevention which addresses reduced pollution from construction activities.

The prerequisite requires the contractor to create and adhere, and document adherence, to a

erosion and sedimentation control (ECS) plan that conforms or goes beyond the 2003 EPA

Construction General Permit. In addition to including meeting LEED as an overall project

obj ective, individual prerequisite and desired alternatives would have to be annotated throughout

the guidelines and specifications. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the evaluation of credits is based

on the acceptance of LEED prerequisite requirements.










At this stage in the process the entire building delivery system is evaluated on a set of

performance and cost impacts. For My study the main criteria used for this evaluation are as

follows:

* Environmental factors
* Social factors
* Building performance factors (energy and water efficiencies)
* Health and productivity of workers
* Construction costs
* Design costs

A simple table indicating whether or not the current system addresses these concerns

provides the basis for the evaluation. The evaluation is based on a pass/fail premise to provide a

global evaluation. Table 3-1 lists sample evaluation checklist.

Global Performance Level

The global performance level is key point in which the decision to pursue or consider more

sustainable practices is often made. For proponents of green design this change seems obvious,

for skeptics this change may seem burdensome and unnecessary. Proponents see building trends

towards green building and scientific and anecdotal persuasive arguments in favor of green

design. These supporters see the holistic and ecological balance that LEED buildings may

contain. They are interested in what final building design has to offer in terms of tenant comfort,

reduced environmental impacts, and reduced energy consumption. Arguments for LEED based

design include the following:

* Better indoor air quality to improve employee productivity
* Better indoor air quality improves employees health and well-being
* Integrated design processes lowering operating costs
* Healthier buildings reduce liability
* Best practices produces more predictable outcomes in terms of building performance
* Reduced impacts translates to environment and social community benefits
* Lessened burden on municipal infrastructure in terms of energy and sewer requirements









Those opposed to change typically stand on the sole premise that it is not worth the

additional upfront design and construction costs. They propose these upfront costs impact the

functionality and size of a project. An example of this claim is the total useable square-footage

of building space is often sacrificed in lieu of the increased costs. In addition to the increased

cost arguments those against change also understand the education curve involved throughout the

process to effect change and the amount of effort and resources it takes to educate all those

involved in the process. See Figure 3-2 which details necessary education conduits among

construction participants. Barriers to green design include:

* Lack of life-cycle cost analysis and use
* Real and perceived perceptions of increased first costs
* Budget separation between construction and operation costs
* Divide between building aesthetics, function, operation, and human needs
* Too much paperwork to achieve credit approvals and Einal certification from USGBC
* Informal resistance to change from those involved in the building process

This stage is one in which the facilities staff reviews current building practices and

building stock. The staff would then compare current practices with those required by LEED.

The evaluation may be simply reviewing current LEED standards to the local standards. This

evaluation would determine the 'greenness' of the local standards. Once this baseline evaluation

has been performed, the next step may be to complete a LEED scorecards for the last Hyve

applicable proj ects completed to determine the hypothetical point total for these proj ects. These

totals would provide a snapshot to evaluate the areas for improvement and possible costs

associated with performance improvement. This is similar to the Davis-Langdon approach of

evaluating the non-LEED proj ects.

Goal Identification and Program Assessment

This stage is one in which the influential and deciding players move beyond the question

of 'can we do it?' to developing a path that identifies improvements needed to be made and










begin to develop strategic and program assessments. Goal identification discussions need to take

place regarding time tables for change and what type of certification is to be sought regarding

future proj ects. Key personnel need to identified to champion different aspects of sustainable

impacts and what levels of improved performance will be sought (i.e., water use reduction or

energy reduction). Reviewing data from the Global Performance Level with heads of

departments responsible or in control of possible improvements is a key step. This provides

feedback with regard to possible improvements and an education opportunity to sway decision

makers as to the possible improvements.

It is beneficial at this point to identify the informal and formal barriers to change within the

organization that will resist the process of moving to more sustainable building practices.

Special transition sessions and educational seminars may be needed to 'win over' various

individuals and departments within the organization.

Decision to Change

This is the point in which a proj ect is registered with the USGBC and the process of

moving from the existing development process to the more sustainable development process

takes place. Without question this is the most difficult step for an organization or individual with

regards to change. The decision to move from status quo is always difficult within an

organization. Typically the decision is a prescriptive one (Beach and Connolly 2005) which is

based on the assumption that the decision maker will do what is best for the company or

organization. The premise to the decision is that what is best or most favorable has the most

favorable outcome with maximum benefits or limited loses. Decision makers, like those at the

University of Florida chose sustainable construction practices because they perceive the

processes, and final products, to have greater benefits than the previous traditional methods.









The next part of the decision process involves cost. Decision makers at the county budget

meeting I mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 2 were concerned proj ect gross square footage

costs would increase as a result of implementing green standards. They were clear that

regardless of benefits or proposed savings initial cost was the factor driving their decision to

change. The level of understanding the benefits of sustainable construction were very low within

this circle of decision makers. They perceived change as a risk that was accompanied by a real

cost that they would have to explain and budget for in the very short term. Once a decision

maker is exposed to the benefits and utility of sustainable design they look toward impacts and

improvements the process has over traditional design. The DMASC model provides both a cost

branch and preference impact branch to allow for various options with regard to both cost and

perceived benefits.

While each proj ect is different in terms of scope and use, the initial evaluation process,

architectural conceptual processes, and various department and committee inputs take place for

all jobs. The sustainable LEED based approach to design benefits from an integrated approach

in which all stakeholders have input to the design and construction process. This is a drastic

change from the traditional linear design approach in which plans are passed from the architect

to the engineer and from the engineer to the contractor and from the contractor to the operations

staff, all in which takes place void of any tenant or community input. See Figure 3-3 and 3-4

which illustrates the differences between traditional and integrated design relationships.

The process of moving from a linear design approach to an integrated one may meet with

some resistance. Strong players from the traditional school may not see the benefits of the

additional inputs, however previously excluded players tend to support the process. The benefits

of including user groups in design decisions have been incorporated in other design based









businesses such as automobile manufacturing for years. Designs are often improved with

feedback from those who use, install, support, and maintain equipment that is selected for use in

a project. Compatibility issues, performance tradeoffs (i.e., daylighting strategies), Return-On-

Investment (ROI) strategies, and cost savings may also be addressed during this time. Location

of equipment to minimize installation costs and support ease of maintenance will improve the

overall quality of a job. All of these types of resolutions may be a result of breaking the

traditional model and forcing designers, engineers, and users to discuss the options that meet the

Owner' s overall sustainable design program.

At this point in the decision process the prerequisite standards would be adopted by the

decision makers. The DMASC model provides a no cost constraint for these prerequisites.

However, costs noted for energy modeling and commissioning were included in the UF analysis.

Logical Scoring of Preferences

After the initial decision is made to move from the existing construction program to a more

sustainable program the evaluation of proj ect specific alternatives begins. The following is a

descriptive summary of the logical scoring of preferences (LSP) model. The model is used to

analyze and evaluate sustainable requirements based on LEED for New Construction (NC)

version 2.2. The LSP Method portion of the model is shown in Figure 3-5.

Sustainable Requirements and Parameter Tree

The sustainable requirements and parameter (SRP) tree stage is designed to preliminarily

assign cost impacts and preferences to the selected alternative. In this case the SRP criteria is

composed of the LEED maj or categories and corresponding alternatives. Owner preferences or

impacts are defined by building performance, environment, social and health. Using the LEED

checklist as the basis for the tree design allows for meaningful comparisons for decision makers

while developing their sustainable building program. Figure 3-6 illustrates how the LEED









checklist transfers to the SRP format. At the outset, the SRP tree category nodes are divided by

LEED general categories with applicable prerequisites being labeled R for requirement. Each of

these categories, or nodes, is then broken down into their decomposed individual lower level

subcategories, or nodes or alternatives, based on the following general criteria.

* The decomposition of each general category should account for how (a) the existing
program meets the prerequisite and (b) what costs are incurred to develop and meet the
new program requirements. These nodes are represented, or labeled, as "R" for
requirement, "P" for preference or impact, and "C" for cost.

* Beyond the LEED prerequisite nodes, the SRP model accounts for each individual
alternative. Since these alternatives are not required to achieve LEED certification the
corresponding nodes are labeled "P" for preference or impact and "C" for cost. Each node
is represented under its unique parent branch and no two sublevel nodes appear under
different parent branches.

* A "C" or cost node may be broken down into two or more distinct costs such as "higher
initial cost" for certified woods or impacts or "standard" implying no additional costs
compared to traditional methods.

* The decomposition of a "C" or cost node is only to the level they may be generalized based
on the initial proj ect information and budget.

The main goal of decomposition is to allow for an alternative by alternative analysis based

on the owner design program preferences, existing standards, and design and construction first

costs. Current reviews of cost tend to lump all services and construction costs into one overall

percentage increase which leaves newcomers to more sustainable design without the necessary

detailed information to make a sound decision. One point to note that is difficult to gleam from

the initial review is the synergies associated with alternative selection. The model will note

alternatives that have impacts across criteria, synergistic alternatives, to allow for more

comprehensive model output other than simple cost.

The SRP model is based on cost judgments of the user. The simplicity of this model, and

power, is that each user may assign and alter the weights and costs for each alternative. This









increases the accuracy based on decision makers' insights local standards and regional concerns.

Key points are that the overall design tree is based on (1) cost parameters assigned by decision

makers, (2) preference parameters ranked by the decision makers, and (3) cost and preference

parameters that have both cost values and preferences. The associated "R" for requirement, "P"

for preference, and "C" for cost allow for the splitting of the parameter tree into a Preference

Analysis Tree and Cost Analysis Tree using two different models. The "P" for preference node

consists of any combination of the following descriptors: "S" for social, "Env" for

environmental, "E" for building or proj ect efficiencies or performance, and "H" for occupant

health and performance. These initial identifiers are based on regional application and analysis

developed by Eijadi et al (Eijadi, Vaidya et al. 2002). Impact criteria were expanded to account

for tenant health and social relevance. Exemplary alternatives and alternatives falling under

Innovation and Design were not considered for the SRP tree.

Preference Analysis Model

Owners and facility decision makers will have their own set of ideas, goals, and perceived

benefits tied to sustainable design. The preference analysis allows for the LEED alternatives to

be evaluated based on beneficial impacts and how these impacts meet the goals or preference of

decision makers. As stated previously, the purpose is to provide structure and means to evaluate

alternatives beyond simple initial cost.

Multi-attribute Decision Analysis (MADA)

Given the varied nature of the LEED alternatives it was decided to use an Analytic

Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach to evaluate the impacts or outcomes for each alternative.

Falling under the multi-attribute decision analysis (MADA) category of decision making models

(Norris and Marshall 1995), AHP provides methods to evaluate an alternative based on its

relative importance to all other alternatives. Originally developed by Saaty (Saaty 1982) in the









early 1980s AHP methodology has been used extensively to evaluate data that contains a mix of

quantitative, non-financial characteristics that take judgment to monetize, and qualitative impacts

that may be impossible or impractical to quantify such as aesthetics or values. AHP formalizes

the process of making pairwise comparisons.

The seminal work describing how MADA techniques may be used in the building industry

to evaluate various decision processes was put together by Norris and Marshall in 1995 for

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) titled "Multiattribute Decision Analysis

Method for Evaluating Buildings and Buildings Systems" (Norris and Marshall 1995). MADA

problems are best suited for a situation involving a Einite number of alternatives, in this case

LEED alternatives, measured by two or more relevant attributes, which in this case is their

respective potential performance, environment, social, and health impacts. Other classic

elements of MADA problems define a predetermined set of options to be evaluated, tradeoffs

among attributes, incommensurable units of measure, and the ability to replicate the problem in a

decision matrix noting the same alternatives running down as well as across the top of the

matrix. All of these traits are applicable to the problem facing a decision maker involved in

evaluating LEED alternatives.

It is important to note that MADA type decisions do not seek to quantify certainties and

precision like other statistical means of evaluation. Rather MADA neglects both uncertainty and

imprecision due to the inherent nature of the types of decisions being made (i.e., good versus

bad). AHP does employ various strategies to check for consistency among judgments by

comparing Einal rankings with either a geometric means method or calculating a consistency

index where applicable (n less than 15) (Saaty 1982). AHP is applicable for rating, screening,









and ranking alternatives thus its inclusion in this model. Figure 3-7 illustrates a decision process

regarding LEED alternatives and impacts that may be important for a decision maker.

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Detail

As noted previously the AHP process is one that allows for a systematic means to evaluate

pairwise comparisons as they relate to certain overriding attributes or impacts. For this decision

model Saaty's classic intensity of importance scale was utilized(Saaty 1982). Table 3-2 provides

an explanation of the pairwise comparison scale incorporated.

The basic process for determining the end resulting ranking of alternatives is as follows:

* Determine the relevant attributes in this case building performance, environment, health,
and social impacts

* Determine set of alternatives in this case LEED-NC 2.2 Scorecard

* Develop matrices for each attribute

* Calculate eigenvalues (relative ranking) values using AHP processes

* Perform a consistency check

* Apply attribute weighting values (AWV)

* Produce preference ranking output

Relevant attributes to be considered are building performance, environment, social, and

tenant health impacts. The alternatives were rated based on the following judgments:

* Building Performance How does alternative i compare to alternative j based on providing
a higher performing building compared to traditional methods or standards? Energy
savings and water conservation measures were affirmed. The general impact assessment
which influenced judging was as follows (listed in order of importance):
0 Energy savings
o Water conservation

* Environment How does alternative i compare to alternative j based on beneficial
environmental impacts, both long-term and short-term? The general impact assessment
which influenced judging was as follows (listed in order of importance):
0 Emissions/Energy savings









o Water conservation
0 Heat island
o Waste reduction
0 Site selection (one time impact)
o Material conservation/practices (one time impact)

* Social How does alternative i compare to alternative j based on short-term social benefits
of neighboring residents? This may include aesthetic benefits as well as immediate
economic benefits such as employment or access. For purposes of this study, long-term
benefits of sustainable practices (i.e., tax savings from not building additional
infrastructure) were not addressed. For applying a judgment economic impacts were
judged slightly more in favor of aesthetic impacts.

* Health How does alternative i compare to altemative j based on the health and well being
of building occupants? The general impacts assessment which influenced judging was as
follows (listed in order of importance):
0 Air Quality
0 Lighting
o Thermal comfort

The LEED alternatives were judged using the pairwise comparison scale noted in

Table 3-2. It is important to note that during the scaling phase the LEED alternatives were

looked at independently. For example, although Indoor and Environmental Quality Alternative

8.1: Daylight and Views is typically linked with energy savings and thereby also having an

environmental benefit, it was not considered an environmental benefit because there is no direct

environmental benefit of daylighting per se.

The intensity of importance scores are applied in a matrix of paired comparisons (MPC).

The MPC is the tool that captures the decision makers input with regard to the relative

importance of the model criteria based on the overriding attribute. This model developed four

initial MPC's focusing on performance, environment, occupant health, and social impacts as the

overriding attributes. For example, if energy savings is the overriding attribute than the LEED

alternative is compared to each other with regard to their role or impact in energy savings. A

score is placed in the matrix with importance of the attribute running down the matrix always









compared to the attribute running across the top of the matrix. A key concept with regard to

scoring a matrix is that of reciprocals. For the matrix to be consistent it is given that for any

importance score for an x attribute relative to a y attribute the reciprocal score must be applied to

the y attribute relative to the x attribute. A simple way for think of this concept is that if attribute

x is twice as important that attribute y, then conversely attribute y must be half as important as

attribute x. Another way to view the scaling system in a pairwise matrix is to consider a rating

scale progressing from 1/9th to 9 in relative importance from lowest order of affirmation to

highest order of affirmation

Like comparisons of attributes diagonally across and down a matrix earn the value of 1

since attributes must have equal importance to themselves. The benefit of the concept of

reciprocals is that the matrix may be set up in a software package in such a way that only the top

or bottom have of the matrix needs to be filled out. The DMASC model was developed by the

author using Microsoft Excel.

Once the matrix is complete it is processed to determine the principal vector or eiganvalue

which is a score that normalizes individual comparisons by the column total (sum equals to one),

then sums the normalized individual scores into row totals to determine the Einal priority weight

or ranking of alternatives. A consistency index may be used for matrices with n less than fifteen

(Saaty 1982). For my study an alternative consistency check method using the geometric mean

of the normalized row totals was incorporated to check eigenvalues. AHP is a powerful to

organize intuitions, preferences, and logic into a formal decision process (Crowe and Noble

1998).

The matrices provided a mathematical means to identify the criteria impacts for each

alternative. The alternatives represented the LEED alternatives listed on the LEED-NC 2.2









scorecard. Since the alternatives were judged based on intent individual credit options were not

judged nor were any Innovation and Design alternatives, Prerequisites, or the LEED AP

alternative. Innovation and Design alternatives are project specific alternatives awarded for

exemplary performance or innovation on a proj ect by proj ect case.

Due to the relatively large initial size of the matrices (n=50), and to add precision and

value to the final rankings, second-stage matrices of paired comparisons (MPC) were developed.

These matrices took those alternatives that met an impact threshold relative to the other

alternatives based on the individual matrix attributes.

After the second evaluation was complete the number of alternatives identified under each

performance category was determined to be as follows:

* Building Performance 15 LEED Altemnatives (30%)
* Environment 39 LEED Alternatives (78%)
* Social 12 LEED Altemnatives (24%)
* Health 18 LEED Alternatives (36%)

The resulting baseline ranking scores supported the category identifications noted on the

Sustainable Requirement and Parameter (SRP) Tree. This allowed for an applicable criteria

score to be developed for each alternative. The process involved is summarized as follows:

* Based on the full-scale MPCs abbreviated MPCs were developed across all four criteria
incorporating those LEED alternatives meeting a minimum threshold impact.

* The abbreviated MPC were re-evaluated following the same AHP processes.

* The subsequent LEED alternative preference rankings for the individual criteria were
normalized by dividing each alternative value by the highest ranking criteria value.

* An impact matrix was developed to sum the composite score for each LEED alternative.

* The composite scores where then ranked in value descending order.

The scores for each MPC were normalized by dividing the each preference ranking by the

highest scoring preference ranking in that column. This provided a basis to rank the scores on









their relative impact to the scoring criteria. An alternative composite score was then tabulated by

summing the normalized value across all four criteria. The ranking of normalized composite

score demonstrates the overall balanced impact individual alternatives have across all four

preference criteria relative to each other. This is unique to this model. The outcome at this stage

of the model is a balanced score that evaluates alternatives across criteria, or perceived benefits,

to determine a relative impact of LEED alternatives.

Preference Weighting of LEED Alternatives

Preference weighting of the LEED alternative normalized scores allows a decision maker

to place importance on design outcomes. The traditional construction design follows a series of

steps from programming through preconstruction. During these phases the design team sets

goals to be achieved based on owner demands and feasibility constraints. The weighting of the

balanced impact alternatives allows for an owner to prioritize the LEED alternatives to meet

program performance outcomes or expectations. For example, if an owner is focused on having

a LEED certified building that she may market as a healthier workplace compared to traditional

design then it would be vital to include those alternatives that focus on health of occupants.

Likewise, if an owner is more concerned with building performance, than the identified building

performance alternatives should be emphasized over other non-performance alternatives during

the initial phase of design. The weighting of the normalized scores allows for the owners

preference to influence the hierarchy of alternative rankings.

Preference weights across the four outcome criteria are applied to the initial balanced

weights to provide for a weighted ranking for each alternative. Preference weights are applied as

percentages summing to one across the four criteria. Weights may be applied evenly across all

criteria whereby the initial composite rankings would not change (i.e., 25% applied to each

criteria), or weighted to reflect the owners preference for outcome. The process result is a









ranked list of alternatives that takes into account alternative impact, as it relates to outcome, as

well as the decision maker' s program goals. At this point the proj ect team evaluates the

alternatives and assigns each alternative one of the following identifiers:

* Required or building standard (no additional cost to LEED proj ect)
* Essential
* Optional
* Non-applicable

The process allows for the alternatives to be evaluated along side their relative ranking. This

provides a context for credit evaluation.

Cost Analysis Model

The cost analysis model is designed to assist proj ect teams at the initial, or program, phase

of a project. The goal of the process is to provide conceptual estimates to allow for relative

comparisons of LEED alternative costs.

Conceptual estimates at the program level are traditionally based on the past experience of

the proj ect team and the type or classification of a building. These numbers typically are linked

to the size of a proj ect in terms of gross square footage (gsf), the proj ect location, and the proj ect

function or complexity. The more difficult or complex a proj ect tends to be reflected in a higher

gsf construction cost compared to a similar less complex proj ect. Since proj ect elements, such as

foundation work or exterior wall construction costs, tend cost the same in terms of percentage of

construction budget across similar functions and design criteria it is common to conceptually

estimate a proj ect based percentages of the overall or construction budget. For example it is

common to estimate site work and substructure for a typical office building at between 3.5% and

5% of the total construction budget.









Costing Assumptions and Limitations

The USGBC allows for LEED credit cost estimates to be determined as percentages of a

proj ect' s construction budget. For example the baseline estimate for material costs is determined

by taking a proj ect' s entire contract value for CSI divisions one through 10 and multiplying this

value by 45 percent. My study followed this same type of logic in estimating costs wherever

possible.

Table 3-3 contains a sample breakdown of the first steps in a conceptual estimate. The

percentages would be applied to the construction budget for a typical two story college student

umion.

Costing alternatives were applied with the following limitations and assumptions:

* Prerequisites are considered "no cost" as the adoption of these standards was accounted for
during the decision to change phase. Regardless, where data was readily available cost
estimates are provided.

* The purpose of the costing was to reflect the increase cost of the LEED process over
traditional methods. The numbers reflect the delta between traditional costs and LEED
requirements.

* Whenever possible gross square footage and overall construction budget was used for the
basis of estimating cost.

* In addition to proj ect budget and gsf information the following alternative specific data
was required as input:
0 Peak building users
o Number of Full-time Employees
o Total number of parking spaces
o Number of Acres restored or protected
o Total square footage of roof area
0 Project build schedule in months
o Wood material cost as a percentage of total material cost
o Low-e wood material cost as a percentage of total wood material cost
o Whether or not LEED processing and LEED AP duties would be handled "in-
house" (no additional cost).
o Whether or not the architect' s fee schedule was adjusted for LEED proj ects (is
there additional line item costs for LEED proj ects?).










* Alternative options applying to residential construction or building reuse were not
considered.

* The following alternatives required proj ect specific information that was impossible to
conceptually estimate and or were not applicable to proj ects on the University of Florida
campus. These alternatives require user input on a project specific basis.
o Sustainable Site Altemnative 6.1 Option 1 and Sustainable Site Alternative 6.2
requiring cost estimates for storm water quantity thresholds compared to existing
site. Not applicable for projects at UF.
o Sustainable Site Altemnative 7. 1 Option 2 require 50% of parking to be covered.
This is not applicable to proj ects at UF.
o Water Efficiency Altemnative 2.2 requires treating 50% of wastewater to be treated
onsite to tertiary standards. This is not applicable to projects at UF.

* The model does not consider cost synergies among alternatives. For example a building
that pursues five or more Optimization Energy Performance alternatives may under the
same design concept and cost qualify for Thermal Comfort alternatives. It is left up to the
user to re-assign these types of additional benefit alternatives as standards or no cost.

* Conceptual estimates are multiplied by plus or minus 25% to allow cost variations such as
inflation, regional differences, or material selection.

The individual cost sheets provide the ability to change applied percentage or material

costs as they relate to specific proj ects.

Cost Preference Analysis

It is at this point that the information from the preference analysis model and cost analysis

model are combined for an examination of alternative impacts or best fit. The preference

analysis provides a context by which the costs may be examined as they relate to the owner' s

outcome goals. Initial preference identifiers and weighted rankings appear along side cost

estimates for each alternative. Since the intent of the alternative is what was evaluated each

option is given the same preference weight as its parent alternative. Each credit is then re-

evaluated based on initial preference identifiers, cost, and ranking. Alternative identifiers (i.e.,

Standard, Essential, Optional, and Non-applicable) may be revised at this point. This step is

unique to the DMASC model.









Ranking of Competitive Systems

After the re-evaluation of alternatives ranking of alternatives may take place. Alternatives

may be sorted by anyone of the following processes:

* Sort by order of alternative identifiers and rankings- Standard, Essential, Optional, and
Non-applicable. In this case the Optional credits would be sorted by ranking.

* Sort by order of alternative identifiers, rankings, and cost Standard, Essential, Optional,
and Non-applicable. In this case those alternatives noted as Optional would be ranked by
their ascending cost.

* Sort by ascending alternative cost.

This ranking completes the LSP portion of the decision model. The next step involves final

decisions and progress towards creating a more sustainable construction standard.

Decision

The decision phase of the DMASC model allows for the owner and proj ect team to

evaluate the final selection of alternatives to be pursued that best fit their outcome goals, budget

constraints, and desired LEED certification level (i.e., Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum).

One of the unique aspects of the LEED process is the fact the registration and certification

cost is not linked to certification level being applied for by the Owner. On one level this means

there is no extra cost burden from the USGBC that influences certification level sought. On

another level the effort involved in the certification process from an alternative submittal process

increases as the number of alternatives sought by the Owner increases.

The decision phase involves an examination of the ranking of alternatives and the final

evaluation of alternative identifiers. At this point any optional alternatives should be assigned to

one of the three remaining alternative identifiers (i.e., Standard, Essential, or Non-applicable)

and a final certification level should be decided upon. Each alternative should be assigned an

alternative champion responsible for successfully ensuring the LEED alternative is achieved and









submitted for approval. The cost module provides a conceptual range of cost impacts and the

preference evaluation module compares the final alternatives to the owner' s original weighted

preference rankings.

Transition to More Sustainable Methods

As more buildings are completed and the owner and proj ect teams increase their exposure

to the LEED process a natural trend may develop as to which alternatives are best suited for the

evolving building program. The University of Florida developed a system of alternative

recommendations to aid project teams during the conceptual levels. Those recommended

alternatives that appeared consistently across proj ects have now become linked to the overall

campus building standards. As such these alternatives are now considered no cost compared to

non-LEED buildings.

Sustainable Building Practices in Operation

At the point most, if not all, of the LEED alternatives that apply to a building program are

intertwined in the building program the need for LEED certification from an impact perspective

is minimal The impacts, costs, and design results of each LEED building would now compared

to proposed and existing building stock. The more sustainable methods adopted into the building

program standard becomes the new current building method and the program evaluation stage is

set to begin again.


























































LSP Method


Cost Preference Analysis


Decision
(s ele action of the B est Alternativel



Transition from t~he Existing Methods
to the More Sustainable Metho ds


Figure 3-1. Decision model for assessment of sustainable construction (DMASC)


LE.ED Cnt~eria
Under Consideration















Proj ect User
College or School Program Comminttee



Support Services
Operations and Maintenance Personnel


Lcal Code Enforcement
University and Municipal Personnel



Private Authorities
Utility and Service Providers


Consultants


Construction Manager
Engineer of Record or Field Representative

General Contractor

Sub-contractor


Suppliers


Te sting
Lab oratori es


Figure 3-2. Green education conduits among construction participants


Project Owner
University Facilities Department


Architects and
Engineers















































Neighborhood / Commumlty
Input from Conception through Construction


SBlulddmgOperatons and M~anagement


Figure 3-4. Sustainable integrated design approach


Figure 3-3. Traditional linear design approach
















































Figure 3-5. Logical scoring of preferences method


LEED-NC 2.2
S RP Tre es
Parert.

S ust ainable
Sites


Sub-no de


Sub-node


SSPrerec 1 Site PolluticeContol REyC

SSC recht 1 Site S ele ction [P (SEm]

DeveloptnrtD enitty&
SSC recht 2 C omnmurnty C onnecity
Option 1 Developmerd [P (,Em)]
Option 2 Community Connectivity [F (S, Enrn()

SSC recht 3 BrowrtieldRedevelopnert [P (,Em~1]

Alternative Tramy:ortation -
SSC recht 4 1 Public Access
Oion 1 1/2 mile rail FSnl
Option 2 1/4 mile bus [P (,Em(:I]
ExemplaryPerf C amp. Tramy:.ortation Plan [P (S,Em





Figure 3-6. LEED sustainable requirements and parameter (SRP) tree











Objective:
Select Best Fit LEED
Alternative




Environment Building Health Social First Cost
Impacts Performance Impacts Impacts Impacts
Impacts


Figure 3-7. An example hierarchy for the problem of selecting the best LEED alternatives











Table 3-1. Sample existing system global performance evaluation checklist
Factor Description Evaluation (Y/N)
Environmental Does current delivery method address Yes or No
limiting negative impacts of
construction on building site and
associated area?
Social Does current delivery method address Yes or No
social context of construction, including
but not limited to employee access and
local economic impact of building
location?
Energy and water Does current delivery method address Yes or No
potential cost savings of energy and
water modeling or optimization?
Health and Does current delivery method address Yes or No
productivity best method of systems installation,
worker health during installation, short
and long-term effects of product off-
gassing, and tenant worker conditions
regarding daylighting and temperature
and light controls?
Proj ect delivery Does current delivery method address Yes or No
methods contractor responsibility with regard to
waste-management; recycle content and
environmental impact of building
products, and indoor environmental
quality at time of turnover?
Design Costs Does current delivery method provide Yes or No
an evaluation, in terms of score or
grade, of how well the final design has
met the overall program intent?










Table 3-2. The pairwise comparison scale
Intensity Scale Definition
1 Equal importance of both elements



3 Weak importance of one element
over another


5 Essential or strong importance of
one element over another


7 Demonstrated importance of one
element over another




9 Absolute importance of one element
over another





2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values between two
adj acent judgments


Explanation
Two elements contribute equally
to the property


Experience and judgment slightly
favor one element over another


Experience and judgment strongly
favor one element over another


An element is strongly favored and
its dominance is demonstrated in
practice


The evidence favoring one
element over another is of the
highest possible order of
affirmation.



Compromise is needed between
two judgments


Reciprocals


If activity i has one of the preceding
numbers assigned to it when
compared with activity j, the j has
the reciprocal value when compared










Table 3-3. Sample applied construction cost percentages for college student union


Remaining contract budget after fees:
Sub structure: 5.40%
Shell -
Superstructure: 18.40%
Exterior Enclosure: 12.70%
Roofing: 2.40%
Interiors -
Typical Finishes: 21.50%
Gypsum on metal stud
Cast-in-place stairs
50% Carpet/50% VCT
Services -
Elevators: 2.60%
Plumbing: 2.40%
HVAC: 18.10%
Fire Protection: 2.00%
Electrical: 14.50%
Equipment and Furnishings: 0.00%
Special Construction: 0.00%
Total: 100.00%









CHAPTER 4
DECISION MODEL FUNCTIONS

Introduction

This chapter focuses on the use of the Logical Scoring of Preference (LSP) methodology

and the final decision phases of choosing LEED credits and project certification level. The data

presented provides details regarding the processes involved in evaluating and selecting LEED

alternatives.

Preference Analysis Model

Preference weights allow for emphasis placement alternatives as they relate to proj ect

outcomes. Ranking LEED alternatives based on outcome criteria allows project team members

to evaluate credits in a hierarchical fashion as they relate to certification levels. Normalized data

from the outcome specific AHP MC tables is presented in Figure 4-1.

To measure the effect of preference weighting an outcome analysis was performed by

certification level. For this analysis each alternative with an impact score was assigned a value

of one. This allowed for the summation impacts by certification level as preference weights

were applied. To recap from Chapter 3, the total number of impacts is outlined in Table 4-1.

An analysis was conducted by varying the outcome preferences and summing the ranked

alternatives impacts across preference or outcome criteria. For this analysis two input constraints

were applied: four credits assigned to EA Credit 1 Energy Optimization (EA Credit 1) and one

credit assigned EA Credit 2 Onsite Renewable Energy.

Several LEED credits had impact scores across three out of four of the preference criteria

(9 out of 50). Figure 4-2 provides a snapshot of the LEED alternatives with synergy scores

totaling three. This credits had a criteria synergy value of three. Others had impacts across two

criteria (16 out of 50), and the several, mostly falling evenly between the environment and health










criteria, scored only one criteria (25 out of 50). No alternative had a synergy score of four.

Preference weights are on the Preference Impact Sheet (PIS) as noted in Figure 4-3. For

balanced weights the user may enter 25% for each criterion.

Table 4-2 illustrates the balanced (evenly weighted) distribution of alternatives across the

four evaluation criteria by certification level. This table illustrates the alternatives impacts across

criteria based on a balanced preference impact weight.

Table 4-3 illustrates a performance weighted distribution of credits across the four

evaluation criteria by certification level. The alternatives are weighted 70% Performance, 10%

Environment, 10% Social, and 10% Health. Evenly criteria sum in parenthesis next to weighted

criteria a total.

Table 4-4 illustrates an environment weighted distribution of credits across the four

evaluation criteria by certification level. The alternatives are weighted 10% Performance, 70%

Environment, 10% Social, and 10% Health. Evenly criteria sum in parenthesis next to weighted

criteria a total.

Table 4-5 illustrates a social weighted distribution of credits across the four evaluation

criteria by certification level. The alternatives are weighted 10% Performance, 10%

Environment, 70% Social, and 10% Health. Evenly criteria sum in parenthesis next to weighted

criteria a total.

Table 4-6 illustrates a health weighted distribution of credits across the four evaluation

criteria by certification level. The alternatives are weighted 10% Performance, 10%

Environment, 10% Social, and 70% Health. Evenly criteria sum in parenthesis next to weighted

criteria a total.









Due to the synergies of credits receiving impact ratings across multiple criteria it is

expected to see a limited fluctuation of credits at the certification level. The greatest changes

occur across the Silver and Gold certification levels. Those credits that receive multiple impacts

tend to fall within the top 20 credits regardless of weighting. Recall nine alternatives received

contributions from three criteria. The added value of this process is the final alternatives are

ranked so that a proj ect team may prioritize the selection of alternatives. This analysis allows a

proj ect team to evaluate their collection of credits to determine, as a whole, whether or not they

are meeting the Owner's preferences for certification outcomes. It also allows a cross

comparison of any number of buildings across certification levels to compare their respective

impacts. This is unique to this model.

After preference weights are applied, the owner would then evaluate each alternative in the

context of their synergies and ranking. Figure 4-4 illustrates how the owner would select one of

four options to apply to each alternative: Standard (no additional cost compared to traditional

requirements), Essential, Optional, and Non-applicable (NA) for evenly weighted alternatives.

Figure 4-5 displays a portion of the selection table for LEED alternatives with a 70%

Performance weighting. Remaining criteria are assigned 10% each. Figure 4-6 displays the

selection table for LEED alternatives with a 70% Environment weighting. Remaining criteria

are assigned 10% each. Figure 4-7 displays a portion of the selection table for LEED

alternatives with a 70% Social weighting. Remaining criteria are assigned 10% each. Figure 4-8

displays the selection table for LEED alternatives with a 70% Health weighting. Remaining

criteria are assigned 10% each.









The LEED alternatives would be given preference identifiers with regard to synergies

associated with alternatives, weighted ranking, and proj ect fit. The owner or proj ect team then

moves to costing individual LEED credits.

Cost Analysis Model

In order to perform initial costing of credits proj ect specific information was entered on

two data request sheets. The first sheet asks for build team information, job budget information,

and project gross square footage as shown in Figure 4-9. The second data sheet requests

information specific to LEED credits as outlined in Figure 4-10. Cells highlighted in white were

input by the user.

After proj ect data and LEED specific data was entered the Scorecard Sheet was accessed.

This sheet has links to each credit takeoff sheet (credit is highlighted in blue) and allows for the

notation of credit status according to current university standards. Three options are given:

standard (no additional cost compared to standard construction), required (all prerequisites are

hard coded required), and not-applicable. These identifiers do not influence criteria preferences

and are solely to aid anyone filling out the scorecard with regard to costs.

Credit or point conceptual estimates of LEED alternatives were conducted. In My study

those credits, including each credit option and exemplary credits, falling within the realm of

possibility for University of Florida campus proj ects were estimated for cost. Conceptual

estimates were conducted based on very broad terms such as total project budget, total

construction budget, and gross square footage area. Figure 4-11 provides a snapshot of the

LEED scorecard developed. Each sheet is linked to this scorecard for ease of calculations. It is

important to note that costs are based on the existing building standards and local market

conditions. The only information passed through to the preference and cost analyses are the low

and high cost ranges (takeoff plus and minus 25% of estimate). Figure 4-12 provides a sample









Cost/Takeoff Sheet for LEED Credits. Sustainable Credit 4.3 Option1 entails providing low-

emitting and fuel efficient vehicles for 3% of the full-time equivalent (FTE) occupants. The

takeoff sheet provides the calculation for the number of vehicles needed to meet credit and cost

premium for each vehicle. UF incorporates the use of electric vehicles that plug into standard

outlets and as such considers this a no-cost credit. This worksheet provides a lump-sum cost for

training staff with regard to re-charging and operation of vehicles. UF does not consider the cost

of the vehicles as construction costs and does not apply costs to the total proj ect budget. As

noted on the sheet the GSA study allows for costs associated with vehicles specific recharging

and the IHS study includes the cost of vehicles to the proj ect and credit.

The scorecard accounts for 106 requirement and credit option takeoff sheets and two sheets

accounting for registration and soft-costs for a total of 108 conceptual estimates. The cost

analysis is designed to allow for takeoffs for each proj ect based on existing standards. The

unique part of this method is the ability for proj ect teams to estimate each credit from proj ect to

proj ect. The resulting data would be used to track trends and utility of credits over time.

Cost Preference Analysis

The cost preference analysis provides for side-by-side comparison of previously

established preferences of ranked credits, low and high conceptual cost estimates, and a final or

revised determination of credit preference (i.e., standard, essential, optional, or non-applicable).

The cost preference sheet allows for a team to evaluate credits with outcome weighted

preferences as guide for prioritizing credit selection. This is unique to this model. Figure 4-13

contains the information used in the revising of preferences.

This cost preferences process is the key to this model. It allows for the identification of

preferences prior to costing, costing of each credit at a conceptual level, and a reconsideration

phase that allows the design team to consider preferences, impacts, and costs.









Ranking of Competitive Systems

Ranking of competitive systems is done through the analysis of revised credit identifiers.

Costs are summed and categorized by corresponding individual LEED credit identifiers. Figure

4-14 contains the Cost-Preference Summary output. Summary sheet data is linked to costs and

final credit identifiers. Should a team make changes to any of the individual LEED credit

takeoff sheets or reassign credit identifiers those changes would automatically be reflected on the

summary sheet.

Decision (Selection of Best Alternative)

The selection of best alternative is that which matches cost, preferences to outcome criteria

and certification level. The DMASC approach allows the project team to develop various

scenarios at the conceptual level to address such constraints as owner preferences and limited

budgets .

Transition to More Sustainable Practices (Trend Analysis)

The collection of preference, cost, and credit selection allows for a systematic way to

address making changes to building standards that incorporate LEED goals. The University of

Florida Facilities Planning Division has informally adopted those standards they deem

consistently no-cost from proj ect to proj ect.












Composite Scores asul
LEED Cardi Inmact Sco~stsNn







Allntth Caegl

Fr r .: .
*. r- : .






*.1--11~~ .-.I Tim :: 2
*.[*--I .-I h a :r d s I -I O



-1 -1I I *. =p o.11 I 11. 1~ 11 .~1 ...


SSCre dit
5 1


Site Development Protect or
Restore


271 0 1


Figure 4-1. LEED alternatives composite score and ranking











LEED NC-2.2 Score Carilby Synergy


Max, Syna~istC Credi~ts
LEED Building SynergBistC
Allternrative Ca~tegory Poin~ts Performanrc Environmnt Social Health Sun
SSCredit 4.2 Alt. Transportation Biccycl 1
Storage & Changng Rooms 3
EACredit 3 Enhanced Coninissioning 1 r + a 3
EACredit 5 Measuremnt & Verification 1 ***3
EQCredit 1 Outdoor Air Del. Monitor 1
Opt. 1 Mech Vent. 3
EQCredit 6.1 Control Lights- Individuland 1
group spaces 3
EQCre.it 6.2 Contro~l Therml Inclivi~lal 1
andgroup space *
EQCre.it 7.1 Thenn~al Design et design 1
exidelines 3
EQ Crdit 7.2 Therm~al Verification survy 1
six to 18 months post
occupancy 3
EQCredit 8.1 Daylight ?St*( 1 3



Figure 4-2. LEED alternatives with synergistic sums across three out of four outcomes




LEED-NC 2.2 Pairwise comparison
LEED Credit Normalized Composite Impact Scores


Enter % for Preference Impacts
(sum = 1)


25%
25%
25%
25%


Building Performance:
Environment:
Social :
Health :


Sum:


Figure 4-3. Preference impact weights










LEED NC-2.2 Scorer Card by ~Spiel gy
LEED Credit Clutput by Certification Level

Syr ergistic Credlits



Max.,
LEEDSelet Oe ofFou
Alterativ Caeoy ons pin



i~lte~at V erifcatigon y Pitl pin


SS Credit 4.2 IAlt. Tranisportation 1 3 3
Bicycle Storage &
Changua Rooms
ECredit 1 Optimize Energy 4 2 4
P erformanice
EQCredit D~aylight 75% 1 3 5
8.1



Figure 4-4 Initial ranked evaluations of alternatives for evenly weighted alternatives















811 e m~istic Credlits






Ma.
LEED)~ Select One of Four
Alternative Category Pointsl ~u Options
ECredit 1 Optimize Energy 4 2 1
P erformane
ECredit 3 Enhanced 1 3 2
Comrmssiorang
ECredit 5 Measurement & 1 33
Verification
EQCredit D~ayight 75% 1 3 4
8.1
EQCredit Thermal Desgn meet 1 3 5
7. designguidelines


EQ Cre dit Control Lights -
1 1 Tnlk .hal amel m.m.


* I


Figure 4-5 Initial ranked evaluations for 70% performance weighted alternatives















Syr ergistic Credlits







LEED Select One of Four
Altenativ Categooy Points w & Options
EACredit 3 Enhanced 1 3 1
Co~rmns siorn
EACredit 1 Optimize Energyr 4 2 2
Perfbrrnance
EACredit 5 Measurement~ & 1 3 3
Verific ation
EQ Cre dit Dayhght 75%. 1 3 4

EQ Credit 1 Outdoor Air Del. 1 3 5
Monitor Opt. 1-
Mech Vent.



Figure 4-6 Initial ranked evaluations for 70% environment weighted alternatives











ILEED NC-2 2 Score Card by Cynergy
LEED Credit Output by Certification Level

Syr ergistic Credlits



Max.,


LEED> SetOe fFu
Alternative Category Pointsl elc Optif ons
SS Credit 4.2 IAlt. Transportation 1 3 1
Bicycle Storane &~
SS Credit 4. 1 IAlternative 1 2 2
Transportation Public
SS Credit 4.4 IAlt. Tranisportation 1 2 3
Parkinglu Capacity
SSCredit 3 Brownfeld 1 2 4
SSCredit 1 Site Selection 1 2 5
SS Credit 2 D~evelopment Density 1 2 5
MBCredit Regional Material 10% 1 1 7


Figure 4-7 Initial ranked evaluations for 70% social weighted alternatives











1LEED Ni'.-'2 'I Sone Ca I..Rr II rne rgyi



Syr ergijstic Credits






Max. *E s6

Alternative C ate gory Points W el r Options
EACredit 3 Enhaniced I 3 1
C omranssiorn
EACredit 5 Measurement8 & 1 3 2
Verific ation
SS Credit 4.2 IAlt. Transportation 1 3 3
Bicycle Storage &
Changn Ro ors
EQ Cre dit Dav11ht 75% 1 3 4


EQ Credit 1


Clutdoor Air Del.
Monitor Opt. 1


Figure 4-8 Initial ranked evaluations for 70% health weighted alternatives





LEDNC 2.2 Project Data Input
Project Title:
Project Identification Ninnber:
Project Location:

O wner:

Architect:

Conunissionin~g Agent:

Contractor:

Total Project Budget:

Conceptual Design:

Contract Value:

Design Budget:

Contingency.Iquipinent :

Total Construction Budget:

Buiklin~g Gross Square Footage (GSF):

Baseline Cost Per Square Foot:


GrecenBuik1 101
GOUF
UF Campus
Gainesville, Florida
University of Florida

Green Architects

CXR

General Contractor

$8,000,000

$120.000.00

$7,880,000

$560,000

$M .0

$6,926,000

50,001

$139


1.50% of Total Budget



7.0% of Total Budget

5.0% of Total Budget


Figure 4-9 Project data sheet











LEDNC 2.2 P ject Data Input LEED specific processes


Credit Reun nut quni Unit
SSCre dit 4.2 Peak Building Users 100 PBU
SSCre dit 4.3.1 Full-time mloyees 30 FTE
SSCre dit 4.3.2 T otalnumb er aknsaces 10 Spiaces
SSCre dit5J.1.2 Number of Acres Restored or 0.0 A cre s
Protected
SSCredit 7.2.1 T otal Sque Fooae ro of area 10,000 SF
MRCredit2.1 Projectedbuild schedule in mnt 18 Months
MR:re dit 7 %'of Total wood based on tatal 2.0% %
material cost
EQCre dit 4.4 %( of Total wood eligible for low- 5.0%( %(
e cre dit b ased on total wood
IDCredit2 Is LEED Proces sing handled "i- No Yes/No
house?"
IV-Sofic costs Does the Architect consider Yes Ye s/No
LEED projects under same fee
schedule as non-LEED projects?


University of
Project Owner: Florida
Pro e ct Archite ct: Green Architects


Project Title: GreeenBuild 101
Project ID: GOUF


Figure 4-10. Project/LEED specific data.











LE#NC 2.2 Score Card and Cost Summary

Projeact.Title: GrreenuBuibll 01 Projeact Owner: University ofFlorida
Project. ID: GOUF Projeact Archite ct: Garen ArhiCtect
Grost: Square Footage 50,001 Co st/Prefernce
Unvrity Status CostRae





LEED
Row Alternative Category IPoints Z Low High
1 Sustainable Sites
2 SSPrereq 1 Site Pollution Control 0 Re quire d $0 $0
3 ISSCredit 1 Site Sele action 1 No Cost $0 $0
4 SSCredit 2 Density Opt.1 Development / Opt.2 1 No Cost $0 $0
Community Connecivt
6 SSCredit 3 Brownfield Re developlment 1 No Cost $0 $0
7 SSCredit 4.1 IAlt Tran1 Opt.1 1/2 mile rail / Opt.2 1 No Cost $0 $0
1/4 mile bus routes
9 SSCredit 4.1.E Exemplary Performance 1 $1,076 $1,794
Complrehensive Transplortation Plan
10 SSCre dit 4.2 Alt Tran2 Opt.1 C omm. Bike racks for 1 $8,400 $14,000
5'9 and Chang. Rooms for 0.5'94
11 ISSCredit 4.2 Alt Tran2 Opt.2 Res. Bike racks for NA for NA NA
15'94 occuplants UF
12 ISSCredit 4.3.1 Alt Tran3 Opt 1 Provide Vehicles and 1 $563 $938
Parking for 3'94 FTE


Figure 4-11. LEED scorecard costing











LEED-NC 2.~ Czedit Summary Sheet
Project Title: GceaenBuild 101 Responsibility: Univenity of Florida
Project ID: GOUF Gcean Axri~tects
Sustainable Credit 4.3.1: Alternative Transportation: Low Emittin & Fuel Efficient Vechicles -
Option 1 Provide Low-emmittin Vehicles and parldng fbr 31.: of FTE's.

Intent: Reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use.


UF Facility and Planning LEED Czedit Vale (LCV):

Inw High
LCV Cost Inmpat IEstimate Estimate
1 Ivandate $0 $0
2 No or MIinor $0 $500
3 Low $501 $50,000
4 Ivoderate $50,001 $150,000
5 IHigh $150,001


Conmarative Cost Indicatons:
UF Facilities: UF does not consider costs of plug-invehicles.
GSA Courthouse: GSA considers costs fbr refulin~g stations.
IHS Health Care Facility: IHS considers the additional premium fbr buying low-emitting
vehicles .

PoetFtimate :
Calculates +/- 25%H takoeoff to determine Inw and High Fatimate
Low Hieh Estimate
Enter takeoff or estimate to replace'..alues above here: $375 $625
Alternativ vehicles fbr 3%:: of FTE (1 per 33 FTE)
FTE (from Project Data Input): 3
Cost %:. 1
Premium Ror vehicles: $0 0.91 1.00 $0
Trainig Ror staff(ILS): $500 ILS $500






Total: $500


Prefexene Rating:


ImpactYes/N~o
Social No
Environmental Yes
Perfuourmce No
Health No


Figure 4-12. Sample LEED credit cost summary/take-off

















From
Pufennce Fram Cost Module II-
EersicCredits Identifirs Scorecant




% aSelect from
Maxr. B Preliminry Dzwp Box
LEEDt Credit Low High Revised Credit
Alternative Category Points pi w m m~Identifier Estimate Estimate Identifer
SSree Sit~ePollution Cont~rol Req -- Req Required $0 $0 Required

SSCredit 1 Sit~e Selection 1 I I 22 Standard $0 $0 Standard

SSCredit2 D evelopment Density 1 I I 22 Essential $0 $0 NA

SSCredit 3 Brownfield 1 I I 21 NA $0 $0 NA

SSCredit4.1 Alternative Tranisportation 1 I I 6 Optional $0 $0 Essential
Public
SSCredit41E ExemplaryPerformance- 2 NR $1,076 $1,794 NA
Comprehensive
Transportat~ionPlan
SSCredit 4.2 Alt. Tranisportation 1 I I 3 Essential $8,400 $14,000 Essential
Bicycle Storage &
Changing Ro oms
SSCredit 4.3.1 Alt. Tranisportation -Opt1 -I 1 I 24 NA $375 $625 NA
Alterative Transporatatio


ILEEDNC 2.2 dust Pnfenence Analysis
Pinjers:GPPreslild I101


Figure 4-13. Cost preference analysis





















B aseline Cost Per Scuare Foot.: $150 Total RevisedCostPer Square Foot: $160 $167

Revised Cost Per Square Foot $155 $158
without.R equir ed and Standar d
C osts:

Total Budget Total Construction
C ost Identifier P oint E stim ate s P er centage Budget Perc entage
Low Hih Low Hih Low Hi#
*RecuiredCosts: $37,501 $68,602 0.50'94 O.91'94 O.58'94 1.06'94
*Standard Costs: $ 22 4,5 61 $374, 269 2.99'94 4.99'94 3.46'94 5.76'94
Essential LEED Costs: $214,785 $356,508 2.86'94 4.75'94 3.31'94 5.49'94
Optional LEED Costs: $39,376 $65,626 0.53'94 O.88'4 O.61'9. 10'4
Totals: $516,223 $865,005 6.88'94 11.53'94 7.95'94 13.32'94
*loasw wtout keep~red and
Standard Costs- Considered non-
additi on al LEE D C osts. $254,161 $422,135 3.39% 5.63% 3.91'94 6.50'94


Criteria impacts: Posi~bl: R equir d l*Jinmurn P oint T otal s:
Perform ance: 10 15 C eriifiead: 26
Emvir crmanet: 22 39 Silver: 3
Social: 8 12 Gold: 39
Health: 13 18 Platinum: 52


LEED-NC 2.2 Cost/Pnfe~nnc Summary
Project: GneenBuild 101


$7,500,000

$6,493,125


Total Pr oject Budget


Total C onstruction Budget:


Low High


TotalPoint Co unt:
Standard: 6
Essential: 28
SuatotBE 34
Optional: 5
Total* 39


Figure 4-14. DMASC cost-preference summary sheet
























Table 4-2. Balanced LEED alternatives (Evenly Distributed)
LEED Certification Levels


Table 4-3. Performance weighted LEED alternatives
LEED Certification Levels


Table 4-1. LEED alternatives preference outcomes
Preference Outcome Number of LEED alternatives with associated outcomes
Performance 15


Environment


Social


Health


Outcome Criteria
Building Performance

Environment


Certified


Silver


Gold
15

32

11

11


Platinum
15

39

11

17


Social

Health


Outcome Criteria
Building Performance

Environment

Social

Health


Certified
15 (14)

23 (23)


Silver
15 (15)

28 (28)

9 (9)

10 (10)


Gold
15 (15)

32 (32)

11 (11)

11 (11)


Platinum
15 (15)

39 (39)

11 (11)

17 (17)


4 (5)

9 (9)









Table 4-4. Environment weighted LEED alternatives
LEED Certification Levels

Outcome Criteria Certified Silver Gold Platinum
Building Performance 14 (14) 15 (15) 15 (15) 15 (15)

Environment 23 (23) 30 (28) 36 (32) 39 (39)

Social 3 (5) 9 (9) 9 (11) 12 (11)

Health 9 (9) 9 (10) 9 (11) 17 (17)


Table 4-5. Social weighted LEED alternatives


LEED Certification Levels

Silver Gold
14 (15) 15 (15)

28 (28) 32 (32)

12 (9) 12 (11)

9 (10) 11 (11)


Outcome Criteria
Building Performance

Environment

Social

Health


Certified
11 (14)

21 (23)

12 (5)

9 (9)


Platinum
15 (15)

39 (39)

12 (11)

17 (17)









Table 4-6. Health weighted LEED alternatives


LEED Certification Levels

Silver Gold
14 (15) 15 (15)

21 (28) 27 (32)

4 (9) 8 (11)

18 (10) 18 (11)


Outcome Criteria
Building Performance

Environment

Social

Health


Certified
14 (14)

20 (23)

3 (5)

12 (9)


Platinum
15 (15)

38 (39)

12 (11)

18 (17)









CHAPTER 5
RESULTS

Model Summary

The Decision Model Assessment for Sustainable Construction (DMASC) is an insightful

and systematic way to evaluate current building standards and LEED alternatives from both a

preference outcome perspective as well as from a project budget perspective. The model

addresses the short-comings in previous studies that seek to determine or apply a universal

percentage across all proj ects regardless of type of proj ect, local context for standards, or

owners' objectives for green design.

UF's No-Cost LEED Certification

As of the spring of 2007 the University of Florida' s Facility and Planning Division (FPD)

has raised its internal proj ect LEED certification goal from certified to silver or from a minimum

of 26 LEED points to 33 LEED points. This is decision is prompted by their understanding that

LEED certified (26 points) is now achieved via no additional project costs. The DMASC model

demonstrates this by identifying all credits UF considers standard as "Standard" and identifying

all remaining credits as "Non-Applicable" on the Cost Preference Analysis Sheet. Figure 5.1

displays sample output for UF's standard LEED credits totaling 26 points which is the minimum

needed for a base LEED certified rating and seven additional credits selected based on lowest

cost to arrive at a total of 33 credits or the minimum LEED silver certification. UF notes

required credits and standard credits as construction alternatives that would be required or

pursued regardless of seeking a LEED certification. As such the facilities and planning staff do

not consider them additional costs.

The analysis of UF's "standard only" selected credits illustrates the impact of adopting

LEED principles within current building standards when determining the overall cost impact.










The Requirement Costs noted in Table 5.1 consist of energy modeling and fundamental and

enhanced commissioning. The majority of the Standard Costs estimate for waste diversion

which had a cost range of $112 thousand to $187 thousand and Design soft costs that had a range

of $63 thousand to almost $105 thousand. Both these costs are considered no additional costs at

UJF. Construct waste diversion is considered a no cost by contractors, partly because of the

recycled value of sorted materials although there is no hard data to support this assumption.

Design fees are not considered for two main contributing reasons: 1) UF requires the design team

to have completed a minimum of two LEED proj ects, and 2) UF's design fee is based on curve

that accounts for square footage and complexity of the j ob. No additional fees are allotted for

LEED design.

Table 5-1 breaks the cost data obtained from the DMASC Summary Sheet, noted in Figure

5.1, into percentages of costs based on certification levels and total associated costs and adjusted

costs which are those costs less the required and standard costs.

UF's process for selecting LEED credits, as outlined in Chapter 2, involves the initial

review of no-cost or standard credits as they apply to a proj ect and then the evaluation of

moderately cost credits, and then compares the results of both processes with required and

optional certification levels. What this process is lacking is an analysis of user group desired

outcomes.

Sample Output by Preference for Identical Project Data Input

The model was run to demonstrate how credit preference and credit selection influence

overall cost impacts for a proj ect across certification levels. Proj ect data input (i.e. proj ect

budget, construction budget, gross square footage, and LEED specific inputs). Two scenarios

were run with regard to preference and costing credits. First scenario, the "UF Outcome"

scenario, assigned identifiers consistent with UF's building program used in the "no-cost"









scenario above but optional identifiers were applied to credits that may be achieved on proj ects.

The second scenario was a high and low cost scenario with all identifiers options open to

consideration. This "high-low" scenario assumed there were no existing standards.

UF Based Preference-Cost Analysis

For UF based scenarios the model was run with the following preference weights assigned.

* Evenly weighted (25% across all criteria)
* Performance 70% weighted (10% across remaining criteria)
* Environment 70% weighted (10% across remaining criteria)
* Social 70% weighted (10% across remaining criteria)
* Health 70% weighted (10% across remaining criteria)

For each of the UF scenarios credits other than standard and non-applicable were assigned

identifiers based on the following restrictions:

* Based on credit preference rankings the first credits summing to 26 were assigned
Essential.

* Based on preference rankings the remaining credits were assigned Optional until 33 points,
LEED Silver rating, was achieved.

* Credits not incorporated in the initial 33 credit total were assigned non-applicable.

* When given a choice between two options the lowest cost option was selected.

Table 5-2 provides a summation of costs across all five preference weights.

High-Low Cost Analysis

The "High-Low" scenario involved disregarding UF's standards and solely identifying

credits ranked by cost. Four constraints applied to this analysis. First, four credits were assigned

to Optimize Energy Performance at no cost. Second, the previously defined non-applicable

alternatives on campus still applied (i.e., onsite waste treatment). Third, LEED AP costs were

noted as standard. Fourth, as in previous analyses LEED registration costs were considered

essential as in they would be necessary additional costs to purse a LEED certification. For the









low-cost scenario credits were first ranked by low-cost estimate. For credits with more than one

option the selection of the first low-cost option obviously forced the remaining options to non-

applicable status. The high-cost scenario held the same non-applicable constraints however

Optimize Energy Performance was assigned ten credits and associated costs applied. Data was

sorted by cost as a primary condition and evenly weighted ranking as a secondary condition.

The credits were identified as essential for a certified rating and optional for a silver rating and

remaining credits were assigned non-applicable identifiers. The key difference between the low

cost analysis in this scenario and the UF Standard and low-cost estimate noted above is that this

low cost analysis solely based on cost. The previous UF example was first selected based on

standards which may or may not have had an embedded cost.

Table 5-3 contains the cost information associated with both low and high cost evaluations.

For the low-cost scenario the seven credits selected to move from a certified to silver rating had

minimal cost impacts. Same is true for seven credits associated with the high-cost scenario.

Figure 5-2 shows the top "lowest-cost" credits sorted by lowest cost and then evenly

weighted ranking. Figure 5-3 shows the top "highest-cost" credits sorted by highest cost and

then evenly weighted ranking.

The insightful aspect of this model is the ability for design teams to simultaneously

evaluate outcome impacts, preference ranking, and cost on the same sheet. It allows for

discussions regarding design and LEED credits to move from simply point shopping for the

lowest credit to issues centering on applicability for the overall proj ect program. A unique

byproduct of this process is the ability to perform impact profiles for proj ects based on the LEED

alternatives selected. Outcome impact tallies are a means for providing such insights.









Outcome Impacts

Outcome data was summarized to determine the impacts of preference ratings as well as

cost across the sustainable impact criteria. Table 5-4 provides a snapshot of outcome impacts

across all criteria based on preference weights at the LEED Silver certification level for an

identical project.

Case Study

Sample data from a LEED certified medical center on the University of Florida (UF)

campus was used to illustrate the processes associated with the DMASC model. Sample proj ect

specific data was entered into the model as noted in Figures 5-4 and 5-5. Two analyses were

then conducted using this baseline case data. The first represents credit preference weighting

health identifiers at 70 percent and performance, environment, and social identifiers at 10 percent

each. The cost summary noted in Figure 5-6 illustrates the costs associated with achieving a

LEED certified building by selecting the highest ranked 26 credits. The second analysis, as

noted in Figure 5-7, reflects credits chosen for an actual LEED-NC 2.1 certified medical center

on the UF campus.

The results are powerful in two ways. First the results demonstrate how current building

standards and credit selection influence cost estimates. The health weighted analysis indicated

an adjusted cost increase between 2. 15% and 3.58%. The sample scorecard data presents an

adjusted cost increase of 0.03% and 0.05% over a traditionally designed building on UF's

campus. This outcome is somewhat predictable based on UF's LEED review process that places

an emphasis on low-cost or standard-cost LEED credits. Secondly the results illustrate the role

credit selection has on building outcome criteria. The health weighted study incorporates those

credits which ranked highest on overall composite score. These credits reflect a greater or equal

influence on outcome criteria across all four categories. Noticeably building performance rated









11 out of a possible 15 outcome points for the health weighted analysis, while the actual medical

center scorecard data demonstrated only four out of 15 possible points. Additionally the health

weighted analysis tallied 15 out of 18 health outcome points while the sample card tallied nine

out of 18 possible health outcome points.

This case study demonstrates the value of the DMASC for use at the conceptual stages of a

project. Understanding the influence of building standards and credit selection are keys to

determining both first costs and building outcomes.





















B aseline Cost Per S epare Foot: $150 Total Revised C ost Per $155 $162
Square F cot:

Revised C ost Per Square $150 $151
Foot without Reqtired
and Standard C osts:

1ot lot
Cost Identifier Point Estimates Budget Constructio
Low High Low High Low Highr
*RecliedCosts: $37,501 $218,339 0.50%0 2.9194. O.58'94 3.36'94
*StandardCosts: $212,561 $352,801 2.83%' 4.70~'a4 3.27'94 5 .43'94
Essential LEED Costs: $0 $0 0.00%o 0.00'94 0.00'94 0.00'94
OptionalLEED Costs: $15,980 $26,633 0.21%' 0.36~'04 O.25'94. 0.41'94.
Totals: $266,041 $597,773 3.55%0 7.97'94 4.10'94 9.21'94
*Iotas
without
Rec rd $15,980 $26,63 0.21% 0.36% 0.25'94 0.41'94


Outcome Criteria: Posi~bl: IRequired Minimum P oint Totals:
Performance: 6 15 ICertifie d: 26
Envir com ent: 18 39 Silver: 33
S social: 8 12 IGold: 39
Health: 9 18 IPlatinulm: 52


LEED-NC 2.2 Cost/Pnfe~nn Summary
Praject: GueenBuiM 101


$7,500,000

$6,493,125


Total Pr oject Budget:


Total C construction Budget.


Low High


Total Point Count:
Standard: 26
E ss ettial: 0
Subiotd:26
Optional 7
Total: 23


Figure 5-1. UF's standard only LEED credit proj ect












LEE D-NC 2.2 Cost PInfretainac Abi
Ptqjct: GereeBud 101
LMwert Ccet by Raking fbr~ UF


Pxwlianc Frm Coast ModidIII-
Synrergitic Gadis Identfifu Scoxecard



H Selct fwnx
Mna Pkelrimiary DBa Bx
LEED redi Low High Revised Cardit
Altermilve Ca~eplyv Ebi p Identifi Estimina Estianrai Identife
EAC~nditl.4 OptimmzE-211: 4 4 St~nardd 0 0
Optiond

SSCreiit 4.1 IAltenativeTransp:.ztation- 1 I I 6 St~ndard 0 0
Bcbhcc Trazu p:.ztation
Accesss I I I .. .nd~oa
SS Credit .4.44 Alt Trax4Opt.4 All-No 1 12 Optiond $0 90


Optiondl


WECrelit 1.1 Waer Efficixt 1 *~r 16 Stnided 9D 90
Larscapirg Reduce 905:
Optiond
WECrelit 1.22 Padue p:.table use fra 2 16 I I NA $0 90
1mascare by1CE:4- Opt. 2-
zatral kndscare tr. a..
EAC~ndit4 Enhanced Refigerat 1 18 St~nardd 0 0
~Murgauart Optin
Select non-glchalwarnidng O I II IIptionJ





Figure 5-2. Lowest cost credits for UF ranked by low-cost and weighted ranking.












LEE D-NC 2.2 Cos8t PIrlimmee PAmsis
Plejct: GreeIBuld 101
Highet Cos tbyR~anking thr UF


Pxwlimmee Fmm Cst Medria II-
Symrg8ier* Cma~ile Identifies Scoxecald



i Selct hunu
Mn arlEbrink- I I DrapBox
LEED Creit LoK HIgh Revised Ce
Altermtiv Categar Rdnir Idartifm Estinrate Estimran Identife
EACelit2.3 CaxSiteE12.% 3 18 II OPtion1 $3.,493 $665,766
Optionda

EACarlit2.2 CaiSitaE7.51:4 2 18 I Optiond $229,676 $399493

Opticond
MECsncit2.2 Const~aronWu;teDivert 2 I M Option1 $1S3,079 $255131


MRC71ndit2.1 Consaxe~tiotWastemiert 1 I M3 St~ndard $112,253 $187,COB
9P i:.f on Disposa I C sIII otiondl

ECQarit 7.1 Thrm -JD lsign -meet 1 I r I 8 Optiondl $101,948 $169,913
design guielne
Optiondl
EACadit 2.1 CaiSit Emzgy 2.M(IBased I I 18 II Optiondl $79,892 $1~331S3
oncas(I
Optiond

D:::C dit .2 Cont201Then & 1 I r I 9 Option & $57,345 :185,S76
Individud azdl groap s paces
Optionda





Figure 5-3. Highest cost credits for UF ranked by low-cost and weighted ranking.





LEED-NC 2.2 Project Data Input
Project Title:
Project Identification Nxunber:
Project Location:

Owner:

Architect:

Conunissioning Agent:

Contractor:

Total Project Budget:

Conceptual Desig:

Contract Value:

Desig Budget:

Contingncy~quipmentt:

Total Construction Budget:

Building Gross Square Footage (GSF):

Baseline Cost Per Square Foot:


Medical Center
GOUF
UF Campus
Gainesville,Florida
Univrsity ofFlorida

Green Architects

CXR:

General Contractor

$26,929,411

$807.882.33

$26,121,529

$1,750,412

$1.436.684

$22,934,433

119,105

$226


Figure 5-4. Sample medical center proj ect data input.


3.00% of Total Budget




6.5% of Total Budget

5.5% of Total Budget



















Cadit RuieIpt utty Unit
SSCre dit 4.2 Peak Building Users 300 PBU
SSCre dit 4.3.1 Full-time mploees 100 FTE
SSCre dit 4.3.2 T otal numb er aknsaces 50 Spiaces
SSCre dit 5.1 .2 Numb er of A cre s Re store d or 2.0 A cre s
Protected
SSCre dit 7.2.1 T otal S ue Fooae ro of area 40,000 SF
MRCredit2.1 Proj ecte build sche dule in m t 18 M months
MRCredit7 %oof Total wood baseden tatal 2.0%( %o
material cost
EQCre dit 4.4 %( of Total wood eligible for low- 5.0%( %(
Ser crdit b ased on total wo o

IDCre dit 2 Is LEED Pro cessinghandle d "i- Yes Ye s/No
house?"
IV-S ofc costs Does the Architect consider Yes Ye s/No
LEED projects under same fee
schedule as non-LEED projects?


LEED-NC 2.2 Project Data Input LEED specific processes


University of
Florida
Green Architects


Proje ct Title:
Project ID:


MIedical Centber
GOUF


Project Owner:
Pro e ct Archite ct:


Figure 5-5. Sample medical center LEED specific project data.





















B aseline Cost.Per Square Foot: $226 Total Revised Cost Per Sqiuare Foot: $236 $243

Revised C ost P er Sqiuare Foot without $231 $234
Rec iuir ed and Standard Costs:


Total Bdge T~~ontl C~onstut
C ost Identifier Point Estim ates Percentage Budget Percentage
Low Hih Low Hih Low Hih
*RequirdCosts: $89,329 $148,881 0.33'94 O.55'94 O.39'4. O.65'94
*StandardCosts: $525,130 $873,750 1.95'94 3 .24'94 2.2954. 3.81'94
Essential LEED Costs: $578,855 $ 96 4,7 58 2.15~'o4 3.58~'o4 2.5254. 4.21'94
Optional LEED C osts: $0 $0 0.00~'o4 0.00~'o4 O.00'4 0.00'94
Totals: $1,193,314 $1,987,390 4. 43~'04 7.38~'o4 5.20'4. 8.67'94
*Totals without Rectiired and
Standard Costs- Considered non-
additional LEED Costs. $578,855 $964,758 2.15%~ 3.58% 2.5254. 4.21'94


Outcome Criteria: Posi~bl: Req~uird Minimum Point Totals:
P perform ance: 11 15 C ertifi ed: 26
Envr onm ent: 16 39 Silver: 33
Social: 3 12 Gold: 39
Health: 15 18 Platinian : 52


LEED-NC 2.2 Cost/Preference Summary
Project: Me~dical Center
C ase Study 70'i' He alth Weight edOutput~
Total Project Budget: $26,929,41 1


Total C onstruction Budget:


$22,934,433


Low High


TotalPoint Count:
Standard: 18
Essential: 8
SubiotBE 26
Optional: 0
Total* 26


Figure 5-6. Health weighted certified medical center case study.





















B aseline C ost P er Square Foot: $226 Total Revised Cost Per Sqiuare Foot: $233 $238

Revised C ost P er Sqiuare Foot without $226 $226
Rec q~r ed and S standard C osts:


TotalBudge T~~ontl c~onstuto
C ost Identifier Point Estim ates Percentage Budget Percentage
Low Hih Low Hih Low Hih
*RequirdCosts: $89,329 $148,881 0.33'94 O.55'94 0.39'4. O.65'94
*StandardCosts: $753,220 $1,253,900 2.80'94 4.66'94 3.2854. 5.47'94
Essential LEED Costs: $8,400 $14,000 0.03~'o4 0.05'94 0.04n4. 0.06'94.
Optional LEE D C osts: $0 $0 0.00~'o4 0.00~'o4 0.00'4. 0.00'9
Totals: $850,949 $1,416,782 3.16'94 5.26'94 3.71'4. 6.18'94
*'l'ols wihot leuredan
St~andardCosts- Considerednan-
additional LEED Costs. $8,40 $14,00 0.03% 0.a05% 0.04'4. O.06'94


Outcome Criteria: Posi~bl: Rec iuir ed Minimum P oint T otal s:
P perform ance: 5 15 C ertifi ed: 26
Erair onm ent: 16 39 Silver: 33
Social: 8 12 Gold: 39
Health: 9 18 Platintan: 52


LEED-NC 2.2 Cost/Pnfennce Summary
Project: Medical Center
C ase S tia:y S ampl e scor ec ar d
Total Project Budget: $26,929,41 1


$22,934,433


Total C onstruction Budget:


Low High


TotalPoint Count:
Standard: 24
Essential: 2
SubtotBE 26
Optional: 0
Total* 26


Figure 5-7. Sample certified medical center scorecard.



























LEED Preference Total Budget Percentage Total Constructi on Budget
Weight by Certifi cati on Low High Low High
Evenly Wyeiehtedl
Certified Total: 5. 10% 8.60% 5.89% 9.93%
Certified Adjusted Total: 3.40%~; 5.65%~; 3.93%i 6.52%1
Silver Total: 6.55% 11.02% 7.57% 12.72%
Silver Adjusted Total: 4.85% 8. 07% 5.60% 9.32%
Performance e WrFeighltedl
Certified Total: 5. 10% 8.59% 5.89% 9.93%
Certified Adjusted Total: 3.40%i~ 5.64%i~ 3.92% 6.52%
Silver Total: 6.73% 11.32% 7.78% 13. 07%
Silver Adjusted Total: 5.03% 8. 37% 5.81% 9.66%
Environment W~eihtedl
Certified Total: 6.55% 11.01% 7.57% 12.72%
Certified Adjusted Total: 4.85%~; 8.06%~; 5.6;0%i 9.31%1
Silver Total: 6.55% 11.01% 7.57% 12.72%
Silver Adjusted Total: 4.85% 8.06% 5.60% 9.31%
Social WJeighlted
Certified Total: 5. 14% 8.66% 5.93% 10.00%
Certified Adjusted Total: 3.68%i~ 6.12%i 4.26% 7.07%
Silver Total: 6.59% 11.08% 7.61% 12.79%
Silver Adjusted Total: 5. 14% 8. 54% 5.93% 9.8X7%
Health W5eiphted
Certified Total: 7. 14% 12.29% 8.25% 14.20%
Certified Adjusted Total: 5.44% 9.04% 6;.28% 10.44%qi
Silver Total: 7.25% 12.48% 8.38% 14.41%
Silver Adjusted Total: 5.44% 9.05% 6.29% 10.46%


Table 5-1. UF certified and silver standard and low cost credit breakdown by costs


LEED Preference
Weight by Certifi cati on
UF ""Stand-ardl" and
Low Cost
Certified Total:
Certified Adjusted Total:
Silver Total:
Silver Adjusted Total:


Total Budget Percentge
Low High


Total Constructi on Budget
Low High


0.21%


7.62%
0.00% o
7.987%
0.36%


3.85%
0.[00%
4. 10%
0.25%


8.80%
0.00%~
9.21%
0.41%


Table 5-2. Preference weights applied to UF standards and options








































Social
12

8

10

9

8

8

3

9

1


Health
18

9

9

10

9

9

18

4

13


$150

$157

$158

$157

$158

$158

$150

$174


$151






$1623





$150

$190


Table 5-3. Low and high cost conceptual estimates
LEED Preference Total Budget Percentge
Weight by Certifi cati on Low High
Low Cost
C ertifi ed Tot al: 0.644% 0.92%
C ertifi ed Adj ust ed Tot al: 0.03%1~ 0.03% o
Silver Total: 0.644% 0.92%
Silver Adjusted Total: 0.03% 0.03%
Hiplh Cost
Certified Total: 16.08% 27.22%
C ertifi ed Adj ust ed Tot al: 15.4 7%' 25;.76% /
Silver Total: 16.70% 28.25%
Silver Adjust ed Tot al: 16.08% 26.79%


Total Constructi on Budget
Low High

0.74% 1.06%
0.03%i 0.03%;'
0.74% 1.06%
0.03% 0.03%

18.58% 31.45%
17.8-on 29.76%;'
19.29% 32.63%
18.58% 30.94%


Table 5-4 Outcome impacts by preference weights with GSF cost ranges


Adjustedl GSF
Costs (Base
Buildin g
$150/"G SF)


Low High~


Ountcom e Enp acts


LEED)Preferenuce
W~eigh~t by
Certification
Total Possible -
UF Standardi2Low Cost
Silver Total:
Evenly Wueigh~tedl
Silver Total:
Performance W~eiphtedl
Silver Total:
Environment W~eiphtedl
Silver Total:
Social W~eightedl
Silver Total:
Health Wjeiphtedl
Silver Total:
L~owrest C ost
Silver Total:
Hiplhest Cost
Silver Total:


Building
Perfonnance Environment
15 39

6 ~18

13 27

12 24

13 27

12 25

12 18

5 19

11 16









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS

One key to advancing a topic or research field is the ability to provide accurate and

relevant information. Unclear or oversimplified information regarding LEED first costs

continues to be a hurdle for expanded acceptance. It is difficult for experienced builders and

designers to accept statements such as there is no-cost associated with method, material, and

design changes that vary from tradition. The message sounds false to an audience that is

stereotypically resistant to change.

This model serves to explain the nuances of LEED design and how practitioners at the

University of Florida have learned from their experiences. The way in which owners and design

teams approach a LEED proj ect plays a significant role in which credits are selected and why.

Should first costs be of concern it is rather simple to evaluate the credits based on costs. The

uniqueness of this model is that allows owners and proj ect teams to evaluate credit tradeoffs both

in terms of cost and building function.

This model incorporated Analytical Hierarchical Processes (AHP) as means to determine

the LEED alternative impacts. The method of evaluating alternatives against themselves

supported previous studies with regard to identifying outcome categories, but also went beyond

previous studies with the ability to rank alternatives in terms of relative importance. These

impacts scores where then summed to an overall composite score for each credit that provided a

means for ranking credits across four broad sustainable benefits: Building Performance,

Environment, Social, and Occupant Health. By having the user set preference weights for these

four impact criteria the overall alternative composite score was adjusted to reflect the users'

preferences. This enabled LEED alternatives to be ranked in terms of user impact preferences.

This is unique to this model.









In addition to the evaluation of alternatives via impacts, each LEED credit option

applicable to the UF building environment was conceptually estimated. These estimates were

broad "back of the envelope" estimates that are the type typically performed at the programming

stage of a proj ect. The key to each of the estimates is the flexibility for which cost percentages

are linked predominately to gross square footage or proj ect budgets. In addition providing a cost

sheet alone is useful in providing a like method to track costs across proj ects.

A key focus for future studies would be to incorporate this model prospectively as proj ects

begin in the conceptual stage through Einal construction. Previous often sited studies have all

been performed retrospectively or theoretically with little or no direct contact with the teams

involved in forming the LEED strategy or tracking costs. Furthermore the model falls

significantly short in capturing two relevant points. One is the lack of ability to capture cost

synergies among credits. Energy optimization, daylighting, and measurement and verifieations

are credits that are often used in conjunction. This model does not capture how the synergies

among credits influences design or construction costs. Secondly, return-on-investment or

payback, both in terms of hard and soft costs, is often given as a reason for pursuing green

design. As energy costs and environmental sensitivity continue to trend upward in the state of

Florida the issue of payback will become of greater interest.






































Credit 1.1 Water efficient landscaping, reduce by 50% 1
Credit 1.2 Water efficient landscaping, no potable use or no 1
irrigation
Credit 2 Innovative wastewater technologies 1
Credit 3.1 Water use reduction, 20% reduction 1
Credit 3.2 Water use reduction, 30% reduction 1

Energy and atmosphere 17 Points


APPENDIX A
LEED PROJECT CHECKLIST

LEED proj ect checklist (USGBC 2007):
Sustainable sites


14 Points
Required
1
1
1
1
1

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

5 Points


Prerequisite 1
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Credit 4.1
Credit 4.2

Credit 4.3

Credit 4.4
Credit 5.1
Credit 5.2
Credit 6.1
Credit 6.2
Credit 7.1
Credit 7.2
Credit 8


Construction activity pollution prevention
Site selection
Development and community connectivity
Brownfield redevelopment
Alternative transportation, public transportation access
Alternative transportation, bicycle storage and
changing rooms
Alternative transportation, alternative fuel refueling
stations
Alternative transportation, parking capacity
Site development: protect or restore habitat
Site development: maximize open space
Stormwater design: quantity control
Stormwater design: quality control
Heat island effect: non-roof
Heat island effect: roof
Light pollution reduction


Water efficiency


Fundamental building systems commissioning
Minimum energy performance
Fundamental refrigerant management
Optimize energy performance
On-site renewable energy
Enhanced commissioning
Enhanced refrigerant management
Measurement and verification


Prerequisite 1
Prerequisite 2
Prerequisite 3
Credit 1
Credit 2.1
Credit 3
Credit 4
Credit 5
Credit 6


Required
Required
Required
1-10
1-3
1
1
1
1


Green power











Materials and resources


13 Points
Required
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1


Prerequisite 1
Credit 1.1
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
Credit 2.1
Credit 2.2
Credit 3.1
Credit 3.2
Credit 4.1
Credit 4.2
Credit 5.1
Credit 5.2
Credit 6
Credit 7


Storage and collection of recyclables
Building reuse, maintain 75% of existing shell
Building reuse, maintain 100% of shell
Building reuse, maintain 100% shell and 50% non-shell
Construction waste management, divert 50%
Construction waste management, divert 75%
Resource reuse, specify 5%
Resource reuse, specify 10%
Recycled content, specify 10%
Recycled content, specify 20%
Local/regional materials, 10%
Local/regional materials 20%
Rapidly renewable materials
Certified wood


Indoor environmental quality 15 Points
Prerequisite 1 Minimum IAQ performance Required
Prerequisite 2 Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) control Required
Credit 1 Outdoor air delivery monitoring 1
Credit 2 Increase ventilation 1
Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ management plan, during 1
construction
Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ management plan, before occupancy 1
Credit 4.1 Low-emitting materials, adhesives and sealants 1
Credit 4.2 Low-emitting materials, paints 1
Credit 4.3 Low-emitting materials, carpet 1
Credit 4.4 Low-emitting materials, composite wood 1
Credit 5 Indoor chemical and pollutant source control 1
Credit 6. 1 Controllability of systems: Lighting 1
Credit 6.2 Controllability of systems: Thermal Comfort 1
Credit 7.1 Thermal comfort design 1
Credit 7.2 Thermal comfort verification 1
Credit 8.1 Daylight and views, daylight 75% of spaces 1
Credit 8.2 Daylight and views, daylight 90% of spaces 1


Innovation and
Credit 1.1
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
Credit 1.4
Credit 2


design process
Innovation in design: Specific title
Innovation in design: Specific title
Innovation in design: Specific title
Innovation in design: Specific title
LEED accredited professional


5 Points
1
1
1
1
1










Project Totals:
Certified
Silver
Gold
Platinum


26-32 Points
33-38 Points
39-51 Points
52-69 Points


150









APPENDIX B
LEED OVERVIEW

Introduction

The University of Florida (UF) is one of the countries leading institutions with regard to
mandating LEED standards for campus wide construction projects. This appendix provides an
overview of UF's sustainable building practices and costs associated with each LEED
alternative. The data is based on University of Florida experience, a study conducted for the
GSA, and a study conducted for the IHS.

Incorporation of UF Directives and LEED Credit Ratings

UF's Facilities Planning and Construction (FPC) office has incorporated additional
directives into the LEED sustainable matrix to account for items the University chose to
emphasize in the design and construction processes. Since these directives are required on all
UF proj ects the for such items is not considered and they are assigned an LEED Cost Value
(LCV) of 1. Additionally each LEED credit has been estimated and given an LCV score to
facilitate the design process. Cost associated with each credit is descriptively noted under the
comments of each credit. Credits are labeled according to the chart listed in Table B-1.

The University of Florida ratings appear in parenthesis following the credit titles in the
next section of this chapter.

LEED Credit Summary

LEED alternatives are summarized following the LEED scorecard outline. Individual
alternatives fall under the main category titles of Sustainable Sites (SS), Water Efficiency (WE),
Energy and Atmosphere (EA), Materials and Resources (MR), Indoor Environmental Quality
(IEQ), and Innovation and Design Process (ID). An overview, brief summation of how the credit
relates to existing UF standards, and predicted costs based on the GSA and IHS models and UF's
experiences are given for each credit.

Sustainable Sites (SS)

Land development and construction activities tend to be inherently destructive to native
species and habitats. In addition development activity on any given piece of property has
potential impacts to surrounding developed infrastructure as well as undeveloped connected land.
Sustainable site alternatives address a wide scope of issues from reduced site selection to reduced
light pollution. The merits of the individual alternatives may be debated, for example only a
select number of sites will qualify for the Brownfield Redevelopment Credit 3, however, taken as
a whole these alternatives are designed to reduce the impacts of construction and reduce the
amount of negative influence these activities have on the planet.









SS FPC Directive Prerequisite 2 Cultural Resources Protection (Required)

This additional FPC Directive serves as an addendum to the LEED Sustainable Sites
Prerequisite 1 noted above and addresses the issues of historical and cultural resources. Projects
must meet requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and memorandum of
understanding of division of historic resources.

This is a regulatory requirement at the University of Florida. Compliance is mandatory on
UJF campus. This is an example of how local authority may add, but not subtract, to LEED
prerequisites so that the designers and builders may work from the same uniform program
matrix. No LEED points are associated with this additional owner driven prerequisite. As a
mandate this earns an LCV of 1.

SS FPC Directive Prerequisite 3 Clean Water Protection (Required)

This is another FPC Directive noting the regulatory requirement that proj ects meet the
Clean Water Act (CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and all related state and local
laws. Again, this directive is regulatory in nature and compliance is mandatory on all campus
projects. No LEED points are associated with this additional owner driven prerequisite. As a
mandate this earns an LCV of 1.

SS Credit 1 Site Selection (Highly Recommended)

The intent of the sustainable site credit is to avoid the development of environmentally
sensitive sites and reduce the impacts of the placement of the building footprint, hardscapes,
roads, and parking areas.

There is no additional direct cost associated with this credit. Typically the Owner has
selected a site prior to or in conjunction with the planning phase of a proj ect and property will
either meet or fail to meet the set criteria regardless of costs. This credit has an LCV of 1.

SS Credit 2 Urban Redevelopment/Development Density (Recommended)

The intent or purpose of this credit is to promote urban infill. The logic being there is less
infrastructure costs and environmental damage associated with urban infill as compared to a
pristine green field site. The credit is divided into two options with Option 1 relating to a density
factor and Option 2 relating community connectivity and promotion of a more pedestrian
friendly development design concept. Proximity is determined by drawing a 1/2 mile radius
around the main building entrance on a site map and counting the services within that radius.

As with other site specific credits this does not have a direct additional design or
construction cost. The only soft cost is associated with the LEED submittal which is noted as a
separate cost in the LEED evaluation tool. This has an LCV of 1 for proj ects built on the main
campus.









SS Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment (Conditionally Recommended)


The rational with credit is to rehabilitate sites that have been damaged by environmental
contamination, thereby potentially saving an undeveloped site. Key to this credit is to pursue
creative Einancing and government support to contribute to the cost of remediation. Baltimore,
Maryland, for example has set up a tax increment Einancing program where the increase in
revenue from completed proj ects is ear marked to pay for future proj ect cleanup.

As with other site specific credits this does not have a direct additional design or
construction costs. The only soft cost is associated with the LEED submittal which is noted as a
separate cost in the LEED evaluation tool. This has an LCV of I and should be part of the
university's campus wide goals.

SS Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access (Highly
Recommended)

The intent behind this credit is to facilitate the use of public transportation by building
occupants. Proj ects have been given support by local authority by having bus stops moved to
meet the guidelines of this credit. If tenants are known during the LEED strategy process it may
be useful to survey them as to their potential uptake or use by types of public transportation.

Fortunately for projects on the UF campus this credit is readily achievable due to the park-
and-ride focus for use by students. As with other site specific credits this does not have a direct
additional design or construction cost. The only soft cost is associated with the LEED submittal
which is noted as a separate cost in the LEED evaluation tool. This credit earns an LCV of 1.

SS Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation: Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms (Highly
Recommended)

This credit is to support the use of bicycles as means of transportation to and from the site.
Bicycle commuting is popular on most US campuses for students and in other cities around the
United States, such as Portland, Oregon, as transportation means for professionals. The critique
of this credit is that it maybe incorporated in a proj ect where it is doubtful to be utilized by
tenants. For example a suburban site in which the prospective tenants have long commutes with
little access to bicycle friendly roadways or trails. Requirements consist of two options, one
commercial and the other residential.

The bicycle storage portion of this credit is included in most plans of a commercial or
institutional building on UF's campus. The placement of storage is a design constraint. The
additional requirement of having shower and changing facilities is an added cost for most
proj ects. The Einancial benefits may be in having a healthier staff that incorporates daily exercise
in their commute.

The cost driver in this credit for commercial buildings is the estimate of Full-Time
Equivalent (FTE) occupants due to the costs and design requirements for shower and changing
facilities. For classroom based buildings on campus this number is relatively low. For
laboratory research buildings or administrative staff buildings this number may be significantly










higher. The two cost categories associated with this credit are the bike rack costs and showering
facilities cost. Bike racks are common requirements for campus buildings and are considered no
cost with regards to this credit. Showering facilities are not common in most traditional
academic facilities and may be a substantial increase. The cost estimate is based on a design
component, a square-footage designation component, and material and construction component.
Construction and installation cost for a ten capacity permanent bike rake is approximately $420.
The costs associated with Table B-2 are prorated based on this rate. Shower facility costs will
vary according to the amount of space allocated, types of finishes, and how the raw space needed
for the facilities is calculated in the cost. For this report the raw cost is not considered. Shower
facility costs are based on a floor plan of 200 square feet per shower of ceramic tile floor finish
with the inclusion of two lockers and one bench per installation. For this report an ADA
compliant shower unit was selected which was six times the cost of a non-ADA self-contained
unit, $3,350 and $670 respectively. Table B-2 illustrates calculation for thresholds for
commercial users.

This credit is dependent on the total number of occupants using the building on a fulltime
basis. In general terms this will be an addition for most university buildings. As such this eamns
an LCV of between 3 and 5.

SS Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation: Low Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles
(Recommended)

The intent of this credit is to reduce the negative impacts from automobile use such as
exhaust. The benefit of this design consideration is that it allows for current and future
flexibility for building occupants. UF's Facility and Planning division purchased the first
electric GEM vehicle for use on campus in 2003.

For the purposes of this credit, low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehicles are defined as
vehicles that are either classified as Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) by the California Air
Resources Board or have achieved a minimum green score of 40 on the American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) annual vehicle rating guide. "Preferred parking" refers to
the parking spots that are closest to the main entrance of the proj ect (exclusive of spaces
designated for handicapped) or parking passes provided at a discounted price.

Building costs associated with this credit are centered mainly on Option 3 due to additional
supply sources and technology associated with alternative-fuel refueling stations. A cost
estimate will need to be provided by specialty subcontractor based on the type of alternative fuel
and number of spaces needed to meet this credit. The GSA study sites a cost of $16,426 for
three electric-vehicle charging stations. Note that Option 2 and 3 are based on parking onsite
and not total FTE occupants. Option 3 would earn an LCV of 3. This cost includes associated
electrical distribution costs for an underground parking structure. Option 1 costs are not
associated with construction and design fees but rather the Owner or tenets choice to purchase
low emitting vehicles. Option 2 costs are minor marking and signage costs or discounted
parking fees associated with operating costs. Options 1 and 3 would eamn an LCV value of 2.









SS Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation: Parking Capacity (Highly Recommended)

The main goal of this credit is to reduce the impacts from single occupancy vehicle use by
encouraging ride sharing among occupants. In addition the reduction of impervious surfaces
related to parking structures reduces infrastructure and impacts of stormwater runoff. This credit
is divided into four options: two non-residential, one residential, and an 'all' or either option that
involves no new parking.

This credit may be achieved at no cost depending on the proj ect' s location and local
parking conditions. For Rinker Hall on UF's campus, which was built over part of an existing
parking lot, the total number of spaces surrounding the proj ect was actually reduced meeting the
requirement for Option 4 provide no new parking. In each option the credits call for a
minimum of parking facilities and have a zero construction cost and potential savings and a
LCV 2.

SS Credit 5.1 Site Development: Protect or Restore Habitat (Highly Recommended)

This credit promotes the conservation of natural areas and the restoration of impacted areas
so to provide local habitat and promote biodiversity. The key to this credit is a primary site
survey to identify key natural elements and adopt a master plan outlining the means by which the
requirements of this credit will be met. The credit is divided into two options noted for sites that
are either greenfields (pristine undeveloped sites) or previously developed.

The design strategy for Option 1 is to minimize the impact of the buildings footprint and
related infrastructure, and the design strategy for Option 2 is to mitigate the pre-existing harm by
restoring a portion of the site to its natural state. For Option 1 the General Contractor should be
able to perform tasks without any additional costs. Option 2 would be considered part of the
landscape costs and no additional costs. Both of these options should be achieved at less than or
at no additional costs compared to traditional strategies and earn a LCV value of 2.

SS Credit 5.2 Site Development: Maximize Open Space (Highly Recommended)

This credit is similar to SS Credit 5.1 in that the design team looks to develop a master site
plan as the design program progresses. This credit differs from 5.1 in that it centers on a
maximizing the amount of open space on a site on the overall site in relationship to the building
footprint. There are three options available for this credit depending on the presence of local
zoning requirements with additional criteria that apply to any applicable designated option.

This credit promotes stacking of building elements and underground parking to limit the
impact on the building site. This credit falls within the same classifications as the other site
specific credits. Where possible it is considered a no cost option but that is given the overall
design program considering this credit from the onset of the proj ect and did not attempt to
redesign the proj ect specifically to meet this credit. This credit has an LCV of 2.









SS Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design: Quantity Control (Recommended)


The purpose of this credit is to limit the amount of stormwater leaving the site and promote
onsite infiltration. Credit 6.1 addresses the quantity of water leaving a site while Credit 6.2
addresses the quality of water leaving the site. The strategies involved in dealing with these
issues support local recharge and reduce burdens placed on local stormwater infrastructure. In
addition there is an option to reduce impacts on local watersheds and aquatic life. This credit
consists of two cases, one for existing impervious less than 50% of jobsite for which there are
two options, and a second case for existing impervious cover is greater than 50% of the site.
There are several strategies that may be incorporated to achieve the criteria listed above. The
goal of this point is to design the site to maintain natural water flows, protect those receiving
points from excessive silts and contaminates, and promotes onsite infiltration or alternative uses
for stormwater.

Several factors go into the costing for this credit. Factors include the level and percentage
of coverage of existing site' s impervious conditions, lot coverage of the new building, the
amount of area available for landscape, and existing soil conditions. In addition to these factors
there are two extreme differences in how to approach this credit in terms of design and
construction costs. One approach would be to reduce the hardscape and turf grasses and replace
both with natural plantings and vegetative collection areas to reduce the amount of runoff. This
would actually result in a significant cost savings over traditional construction and earn an LCV
of 2. The other common design option is include a vegetated or green roof in the overall design
program. The additional cost for this option would be the obvious difference in cost between the
base case roofing material and the vegetated roof system selected. For this report it is assumed
that there would be no additional structural material needed or load considerations for a light-
weight vegetative roof system. For My study the comparison is between a base case single-layer
(60 mils) ballasted EPDM (ethylene propylene diene terpolymer) and a green roof. The GSA
detailed estimate for a 46, 150 sf EPDM standard roof installation is $548,421 which translates to
$1 1.88 per sf. A vegetative roof system covering 65% of the roof area, or 30,550, sf consisting
of a America Hydratech four inch system along with Hydratech inverted membrane roofing
supporting the vegetative roof and the remaining 3 5% of the roof area being standard EPDM
costs $981,542 or $21.27. This is a delta of $9.38 between the two systems given the GSA
building design. This cost is somewhat misleading because the true cost difference depends on
the amount of coverage that is vegetative. The square footage cost of the Hydratech 4" system
and inverted membrane is estimated at $30.00 per sf which would be a delta of $18.12 per sf.
For My study the vegetative roof cost will assume to be $30.00 per sf and cost difference will be
based on delta between this cost and whatever the current building standard requires.

For designs that incorporate Best Management Practices and natural design controls this
would rate an LCV of 2. For those designs incorporating a vegetative-roof system in all
likelihood would develop costs with an LCV of 5 due to the high first cost differential between
standard roofs and vegetative roofs.









SS Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design: Quality Control (Highly Recommended)

As noted above Credit 6.2 focuses on the quality of water runoff. The criteria defines
quality in terms of number of total suspended solids (TSS) removed by water treatment strategies
incorporated in the design.

Several design strategies, both natural and mechanical, can be used to address this credit.
Best Management Practices natural design techniques include vegetative roofs, pervious
pavements, and grid pavers for alternative surface use and rain gardens and vegetative swales as
non-structural techniques.

The cost for this credit is predominantly site related. On a site that has room to incorporate
Best Management Practice (BMP) techniques such as infiltration basins, wetlands, vegetative-
filter rows, and retention ponds than this is a low cost item. Should the site be limited and this
credit be pursued than mechanical systems such as sand filters and water separators need to be
incorporated. Mechanical filtering means raises the cost of this credit significantly. For a point
of reference the GSA study calls for a standard DC Sand Filter System to cover a 2-acre
impervious runoff at a cost of $75,000. This credit would earn a LCV of 2 for a non-mechanical
system and a LCV of 4 for a mechanical system (for a 2-acre impervious area).

SS Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect: Non-Roof (Highly Recommended)

Heat island effects are caused by heat differences between natural surfaces and man-made
developments. These heat effects may have negative impacts to microclimates and human and
wildlife habitats. Credit 7.1 focuses on non-roof techniques and Credit 7.2 focuses on roof
techniques to limit heat island effects. Credit 7.1 is divided into two options, Option 1 address
strategies for hardscapes and Option 2 addresses parking structures. The goal of this credit is to
provide or restore natural shade and incorporate high-reflectance material to limit heat gain and
retention. Keys to design include substituting high-albedo and vegetative surfaces for traditional
constructed surfaces.

One of the keys to this credit is that standard concrete will often meet the credit-standard
0.3 reflectance. An additional key is that the USGBC allows for an average to be used across the
entire site so not all materials need to meet the minimum. A hindrance to this credit is that many
institutions have prescribed service that is used on all proj ects such as asphalt paying and
parking. Given the flexibility of the credit and availability of light paying materials this credit
has an LCV of 2 as a no cost item.

SS Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect: Roof (Highly Recommended)

Credit 7.2 specifically addresses the use of roofing materials and options that will help
reduce the causes of heat island effect. This credit consists of three options that incorporate the
use of high albedo products, vegetative roofs, and a combination of both techniques.

This credit outlines options for achieving cooler roof surfaces which in turn promotes
better cooling efficiencies. SRI is calculated according to ASTM E 1980. Reflectance is
measured according to ASTM E 903, ASTM E 1918, or ASTM C 1549. Emittance is measured









according to ASTM E 408 or ASTM C 1371. Default values will be available in the LEED-NC
v2.2 Reference Guide. Product information is available from the Cool Roof Rating Council
web site at www. coolroofs.org.

The two basic approaches for this credit are to use an Energy Star compliant light colored
roof that meets the requirements for Option 1 or incorporate a vegetative roof for at least 50% of
the roof surface and other requirements outlined in Option 2. The most cost effective measure to
meet this requirement is Option 1. The GSA report notes the following typical systems to meet
this requirement as follows:

* White TPO
* White PVC
* White EPDM

Option 2 calls for a vegetative roof system. Costs for this option are outlined under
Sustainable Site Credit 6.1 and the cost increase for such a system depends on the square footage
incorporated in the design and the comparative existing standard of the proj ect being considered.

The use of a light-colored roof membrane to meet the requirement for Option 1 has no
additional costs compared to a standard EPDM roof and is considered to have an LCV of 2.
Option 2 designs that incorporate vegetative-roof systems would incur significant cost increases
compared to a standard roof. Vegetative-roof systems delta between standard EPDM roof
systems is approximately $20.00 per sf. For buildings with roof areas greater than 7,500 sf this
would have considerable costs and rate an LCV of 5.

SS Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction (Highly Recommended)

The rational for this credit is to limit wasted light from leaving the building or site and to
reduce the effects this light has on the nocturnal environment. This credit is divided into interior
and exterior requirements, both of which must be met to earn the point. The interior
requirements provides for two options one of which dictates angles of light and the other types of
controls. All proj ects shall be classified under one of four zones as defined in IESNA RP 33.
The zones note the building in terms of its surrounding context such as city or rural.

Design strategies focus on lighting criteria to maintain safe light levels and limiting off-site
and night pollution. Keys to design features include cutoff luminaries and low-angle spotlights.
Local code requirements may influence design criteria.

This credit rates an LCV value of 2 being obtained at no additional costs. Partial and full
cutoff exterior luminaries are readily available and cost the same as their non-cutoff counterparts.
The only caveat for this credit is for those facilities requiring additional lighting for security
purposes. In these cases the applicability and cost for this credit may need to be looked at in
greater detail.









Water Efficiency (WE)


The water efficiency credits, all highly recommended by UF's Facilities and Planning
Division, focus on reducing or eliminating the use of potable water. The first two points look to
reduce or eliminate potable water use for general landscaping, the second credit looks to reduce
the amount of potable water used for sewage conveyance, and the last credit looks to reduce
overall potable water use throughout the building. There are synergies between Credit 2
(Innovative Wastewater Technologies) and Credit 3 (Water Use Reduction / 20% and 30%).
Although the economic impacts in terms of savings are small for an individual proj ect, the
ecological benefits to society are great. These techniques may be used to lesson burdens on local
water supplies and treatment plants as well as mitigate potential drought impacts.

WE Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping: Reduce by 50% (Highly Recommended)

This credit was designed to both promote natural landscapes and reduce potable and
natural surface and subsurface water for use in landscaping irrigation. This credit, along with the
other Water Efficiency credits, looks to reduce the amount of potable water used for functions
that do not require potable water (i.e., landscaping, sewer conveyance). The savings are two
fold. First there is no need to pay and use infrastructure to supply potable water that is simply
going to be used in irrigation or flushed backed to the supply source for re-treatment. Second
there are conventional methods at no cost, and other outlying more costly methods, that reduce
the overall use of potable water. These methods should be incorporated, or at minimum closely
considered, in the building design. Basic design features to achieve this requirement may
include plant species factors, irrigation efficiencies, and use of captured rain water or
recycled/gray water.

WE Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping: No Potable Water Use or No Irrigation
(Highly Recommended)

This credit goes a step beyond the 50% reduction in WE Credit 1.1 and requires either that
no potable water used in irrigation or no permanent irrigation system be installed on a proj ect
site. Design features for this credit tend to limit turf grass and increase the use of native
plantings and low-water groundcovers.

Both Credit WE 1.1 and W.2 earn a LCV of 2 and with regard to both cases would result in
cost savings compared to a design standard that incorporates potable water for irrigation.
Groundcover and native plants may have slight increase in cost over turf grass but these costs are
design and species dependent. This credit may be achieved by a number of individual design
features or various features combined. Use of indigenous plants and captured rainwater, or
greywater, are examples of two design techniques that may be used individually or combined to
meet this credit. Should WE Credit 1.2 be met the proj ect would be awarded two points since
this credit exceeds the requirements of its predecessor. The University of Florida campus
irrigation is 100% reclaimed water. Campus planners also stress the use of native landscaping
throughout the design process.









WE Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies (Highly Recommended)

This credit looks to accomplish the simultaneous goals, the first being to reduce the total
wastewater created, secondly reduce the dependency on potable water to convey waste, and
thirdly provide an opportunity to recharge local aquifers. This credit is divided into two options,
one of which must be met to earn the category point. This credit has received its fair share of
attention on the University of Florida campus with the inclusion of the waterless urinal in Rinker
Hall. Several building professionals and contractors on campus sought to exclude waterless
urinals as a design option to such extent that the first floor urinals were installed as traditional
flush valve systems and the second and third floor urinals were plumbed for water should the
waterless urinal 'experiment' fail. Fortunately the urinals have prevailed and are now the
building standard throughout campus saving an estimated 40,000 gallons of water per each
installation. Other options for reduction of water include dual flush toilets and low flush toilets.
Use of greywater and captured water are also examples of reducing the use of potable water for
conveyance.

The main hurdle for this credit is that potable water is still readily available and highly
subsidized and therefore difficult to make a case to pursue this credit based on initial cost for
large scale commercial projects. Secondly, efficient fixtures alone typically do not achieve this
credit unless self-contained units are utilized. The supply calculations on low-flow fixtures alone
tend to push the design need to incorporate stormwater collection or greywater piping to achieve
this credit. Waterless urinals have a lower installation cost due to the lack of supply pipes but
alone may not be an effective strategy to earn this point.

This credit may be one of the hardest to cost due to variations in design strategies and
feasibility issues associated with this credit. This credit has only been pursed on UF's campus
on one building, the Hub renovation proj ect, and is only achieved on less than 25% of over 100
LEED 2.0 sampled proj ects. This credit was not pursued on Rinker Hall due to the more
stringent requirements of LEED-NC 2.0 that were in effect at the time of submission but cost
data from Rinker Hall suggests that the cistern system and associated piping used to capture rain
water cost $52,500. This credit earns a moderate cost impact LCV of 4 to address the costs of a
rain water harvesting strategy. Other strategies may have greater or lesser costs depending on
which strategy is chosen, supply needed, and size of the building.

WE Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction: 20% (Highly Recommended)

WE Credits 3.1 and 3.2 focuses on the building's, excluding irrigation, overall potable
water consumption and design techniques that will reduce this consumption by 20% and 30%
respectively. This credit focuses on reduction of potable water via internal plumbing fixtures.
The scope of the credit does not include HVAC equipment and industrial equipment such as
dishwashers or laundry facilities. With this narrow scope of internal occupant used plumbing
fixtures a 20% reduction if feasible simply by incorporating low-flow fixtures. Low-flow
fixtures without sensors do not cost more to purchase or install compared to their traditional
counter parts. In some cases, as in the case of waterless urinals, they will cost less than their
traditional counter part to install. As such this credit receives an LCV of 2 as a no cost item.
The GSA (GSA 2004) recommends design strategies that include the following:










* Low-flow lavatory faucets / aerators (rated at 2.0 gallons per minute (gpm) or less)
* Ultra-low flow lavatory faucets (rated at 0.5 gpm)
* Electronic (infrared) sensors to automatically turn faucets on and off
* Low-flow kitchen sinks (rated at 2.0 gpm or less)
* Low-flow showerheads (rated at 2.0 gpm or less)

Additional strategies recommended include:

* Dual flush toilets (1.6/0.8 gallons per flush (gpf))
* Ultra-low flush toilets (1.1 to 1.4 gpf)
* Foot pedal controls for lavatories
* Low-flow urinals (rated at 0.5 gpf)
* Waterless urinals

The GSA achieved reductions of 20% or more on their simulations by incorporating one
basic strategy, specifying 0.5 gpm faucets at bathroom lavatories, at no cost.

WE Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction: 30% (Highly Recommended)

WE Credit 3.2 requires an additional 10% reduction over what is required for WE Credit
3.1. Should this credit be achieved it would earn two points toward LEED certification since it
exceed the requirements of its predecessor.

Both Credits WE 3.1 and WE 3.2 have synergies with WE Credit 2 which looks to reduce
potable water use for wastewater conveyance. Savings from WE Credit 2 may be included in the
calculations for WE 3.1 and WE 3.2. University of Florida incorporates low-flow fixtures and
waterless urinals to address these credits.

The design jump to meet a 30% reduction is significant in that simple switching to low-
flow fixtures alone makes it difficult to achieve such savings. Additional strategies typically
need to be incorporated to meet this credit. As with all design credits what is chosen determines
the cost basis. The incorporation of waterless urinals may be enough to achieve this credit, along
with those used to achieve WE Credit 3.1. Strategies that add costs include stormwater
collection, greywater collection, and composting toilets. This credit earns an LCV range of
between 2 and 5 depending on the strategies incorporated in the design.

Energy and Atmosphere (EA)

The Energy and Atmosphere credits are heavily weighted in addressing the use and source
of energy that is to be consumed on a proj ect. Fourteen of the seventeen available points focus
on energy reduction, renewable energy, and green sources of energy. The remaining three points
fall across three broad categories, those being additional commissioning, ozone depletion
concerns, and measurement and verification systems. The goal of this section is to reduce the
amount of energy consumed by a building, verify the building is performing as designed, and
reduce or mitigate the impacts of the power that is used.









EA Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance (Highly Recommended)


This credit is based on comparing two sets of building data, one being the baseline data
and the other being the final proj ect model. There are three options to consider when evaluating
this credit. Each option has different levels of compliance, complications, and costs. Percentage
increase in performance of the proj ect model over the baseline model is how the points are
determined in Option 1. Options 2 and 3 are prescriptive in nature with various restrictions such
as size of building and building location as being potentially influential in achieving the
respective points.

For Option 1 there are significant energy and design model considerations. Options 2 and
3 are less costly but the rewards in terms of points are less and the restrictions somewhat greater.
One of the goals of this credit is to maximize the coordinated benefits of envelope, lighting, and
mechanical systems efficient design to save energy.

The GSA report (GSA 2004) lists three new courthouse scenarios with regard to energy
modeling: First is a one LEED Credit Certified takeoff, second is a three LEED Credit Silver
takeoff, and third is a five LEED Credit Gold takeoff. The energy efficiency measures (EEM)
for the Certified and Silver takeoffs included the following:

* Reduced lighting power densities to 1.0 watts per square foot incorporating low-power
ballasts at no added costs for materials or design.

* Daylight dimming systems at perimeter offices with increased costs for dimmable ballasts,
light sensors, and controls. Daylight sensors estimated at $160.00 each and dimmable
ballasts estimated at $150.00 each.

* Occupancy lighting sensors for all enclosed spaces and meeting rooms. Additional costs
for sensing and controls estimated at $160.00 per unit.

* The incorporation of premium efficiency pump and air handling unit (AHU) motors.
Premium efficient pumps were estimated at $121.00 per unit and premium AHU motors
are estimated at $106.00 per unit.

Estimated energy savings range from 16.9% above ASHRAE performance requirements
for a One-credit Certified takeoff to 25.4% savings for a three-credit Silver takeoff, and to 3 5.2%
savings for five-credit Gold takeoff. Additional EEM techniques used in the Silver and Gold
LEED takeoffs include the following:

* Upgrade from GSA standard Modulating Condensing Boilers (MCB) rated at 3,500,000
BTU/h each to four Condensing Boilers (CB) rated at 2,000,000 BTU/h each. Cost
premium estimated at $50,000.00 for the courthouse proj ect.

* Upgrade from GSA standard High-efficiency Chillers (HC) with variable frequency drives
to two 325-ton centrifugal chillers. Cost premium for two chillers estimated at $90,000.00.










*Variable frequency drive cooling tower fans at no cost premium.


* Additional cost premiums to account for ducting and building monitoring for enthalpy heat
recovery umits.

* Addition of Carbon dioxide (CO2) mOnitors to adjust fresh air based on occupants in
courtrooms, conference rooms, and other group spaces. Premiums assigned for monitors
as well as wiring, system tie-ins, and control programming.

EA Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy (Conditionally Recommended)

With the current state of petroleum dependency there is a push among all stakeholders
involved in construction, development, and maintenance to seek alternative energy sources. This
credit provides an opportunity to be rewarded for such efforts. Although current technology
provides limited payback based on large initial costs for renewable systems, the potential for
even greater costs for petroleum in the future seem to make these alternatives appealing
nonetheless. In addition to reduction for demand these systems offer cleaner alternatives to
petroleum based power. Three points are available under this credit.

Renewable energy systems include such non-polluting technologies such as solar, wind,
geothermal, and biomass and bio-gas. This credit is based on percentage of cost savings not
necessarily power saved. The University of Florida supports these types of technologies locally.

The difficulty of the credit is achieving the necessary amount of energy based on cost and
the ability to produce enough energy to meet the necessary amounts. Several strategies are
available to meet this credit. They include, but are not limited to, the following:

* Photovoltaics
* Wind turbines
* Solar
* Geothermal
* Biomass
* Biogass

LEED-NC 2.2 reduced the minimum of energy production from 5% to 2.5%. This
reduction may make the achievement of this credit more viable. First costs associated with this
credit are dependent on the type and size of system to meet the amount of energy desired.

EA Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning (Highly Recommended)

EA Credit 3 builds upon the commissioning prerequisite by requiring additional processes
by the commissioning agent, owner, and design team. The USGBC outlines the requirements for
enhanced commissioning as follows:

Keys to successful commissioning include involving the commissioning agent from the
start of the proj ect and by getting buy in from all players in the construction team as to the value










and purpose of the additional commissioning requirements. Commissioning allows for a
proactive stance with regard to Eine tuning a building' s systems.

Commissioning costs are covered in detail under Energy and Atmosphere Fundamental
Building Systems Commissioning Prerequisite 1. The GSA notes complete commissioning costs
associated with their extensive program cost runs over one dollar per gsf which resulted in a
$0.05/GSF increase in total construction costs. The Portland reported noted under the
commissioning prerequisite lists costs between $0. 10 0. 15/GSF of total construction costs as a
fee range for total commissioning depending on the complexity of the proj ect. This percentage is
used in this reports model. The tasks associated with this credit involve more time upfront
during the design process and significant amount of time post occupancy. The size and
complexity of the building ultimately determine the commissioning costs, for My study this
credit earns an LCV of between 3 and 5. UF's Facilities and Planning consider this part of their
building program and as such rates a zero additional cost. As noted in the under the Energy and
Atmosphere Prerequisite 1: Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning discussion this does
not mean that this a no cost item. UF's Facilities and Planning department confirms this cost to
be $0.75 per gross square footage. The IHS Study considers this an additional cost based on
hourly estimates of work needed to be completed.

EA Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management (Conditionally Recommended)

The original intent of this credit was to install base building HVAC and fire suppression
systems that did not contain HCFC or Halon so as to support and provide early compliance to the
Montreal Protocol. This credit now provides two options and an additional requirement. Early
critiques of this credit point out that non-HCFC equipment is less efficient than HCFC
equipment posing this credit against earlier energy efficiency points. Regardless, existing HCFC
based systems would need to show a phase-out plan to non-HCFC systems. Strategies for
achieving this credit include natural ventilation and utilizing baseline HVAC systems that have
minimal impact on global warming and ozone depletion.

This credit is often criticized due to the fact zero ozone depleting potential systems run less
efficiently than HCFC equipment thus putting it odds with Energy and Atmosphere Credit 1
Optimize Energy Performance. According to the GSA report vapor compression chillers using
HFC refrigerants can typically be purchased with minimal or no cost impact compared to HCFC
chillers at similar performance/load ratings. This earns an LCV of 2 but does not reflect the
potential negative effect with regards to optimizing energy performance.

EA Credit 5 Measurement and Verification (Highly Recommended)

This credit, often referred to as the "Johnson Controls" credit, focuses on developing a
real-time energy and performance proj ect specific monitoring system. Similar to enhanced
commissioning, EA Credit 5 looks to take a proactive stance to systems monitoring as opposed
to waiting for progressive system failure. The additional benefit of this credit is that it allows for
a higher level of performance monitoring and subsequent data to compare with pre-construction
energy modeling. This allows for a greater feedback loop for designers to critique their models
and estimates.









The key to this credit is to develop a system that allows for a comparison between actual
and expected performance. The system installed would have to provide enough information to
make this comparison meaningful. The greatest impact in terms of return-on-investment (ROI)
is the ability to monitor performance throughout the lifecycle of the buildings. This information
shows the degradation of equipment over time and when it would be most cost effective to
replace system components.

The GSA report (GSA 2004) is based on LEED 2.1 and as a result has slightly different
constraints and requirements. Overall, the credit intent and reference standard remains the same.
The difficulty with this credit is that the GSA baseline requirements include HVAC and building
automation systems (BAS) which meet the necessary requirements for this credit. The GSA cost
placed for this credit involves a soft cost of $0.41/GSF which resulted in a $107,058 for the
262,000 gsf new courthouse This credit is based on the complexity of the proj ect, whether or
not metering equipment is included in the baseline building, and total gsf of the proj ect, as a
result it earns an LCV value of between 3 and 5.

EA Credit 6 Green Power (Conditionally Recommended)

The goal of this credit is to support and encourage the development of renewable energy
resources. The power may come from the local provider of grid power but a premium may be
added to support the purchase of Green-e certified power source. The University of Florida has
supported renewable energy from the local provider, Gainesville Regional Utility (GRU) since
2003. The minimum goal is to purchase at 35% of buildings energy from renewable sources.

The baseline measurement for achieving 35% is from the calculations performed for EA
Credit 1. Although Green-e provided details for green sources of power the contract with a local
supplier does not have to be certified by Green-e as long as the source meets the technical
requirements of the Green-e program. Forms of green power proof include renewable energy
certificates (RECs), tradable renewable certificates (TRCs) and green tags.

The GSA study reports premiums ranging from 1.25 to 2.5 cents / kWh for most purchase
contracts depending on location and availability. Costs drop as contract amounts increase. Cost
ranges for the courthouse in the GSA study demonstrated costs between $24,000 and $32,000,
depending on the energy model used in the calculations. The following lists green power
availability, premiums, and years made available in the state of Florida.

* FL City of Tallahassee/Sterling Planet Green for You biomass, PV 2002 1.60/lkWh

* FL City of Tallahassee/Sterling Planet Green for You PV only 2002 1 1.60/lkWh

* FL Florida Power and Light / Green Mountain Energy Sunshine Energy biomass, wind, PV
2004 0.9751C/kWh

* FL Gainesville Regional Utilities GRUgreen Energy landfill gas, wind, PV 2003 2.0I0/kWh









* FL Keys Energy Services / Sterling Planet GO GREEN: USA Green wind, biomass,PV
2004 1.600/lkWh

* FL Keys Energy Services / Sterling Planet GO GREEN: Florida Ever Green solar hot
water, PV, biomass 2004 2.751C/kWh

* FL Tampa Electric Company (TECO) Tampa Electric's Renewable Energy Program PV,
landfill gas, biomass co-firing 2000 5.00/lkWh

The cost for this credit, as demonstrated in the GSA example, is dependent on the size and
efficiency of the project. UF's contracts have been consistently at 2.0 cents per kWh. With the
broad assumption that most buildings on a university campus are less than 262,000 gsf this credit
earns an LCV of 3.

Materials and Resources (MR)

Materials and Resource credits focus on reusing parts of an existing building for a
renovation proj ect, construction waste management to reduce landfill burden, recycle content of
new building material, and regional and renewable building products. The synergies for these
credits work together most efficiently in dense urban or municipal areas that have recycling
infrastructure and building product manufacturing. The critique of these credits is that some
areas do not have the infrastructure to accept recyclable material in the form of diverted waste.
In addition some proj ects may have limited access to local and regional materials that match the
design program that will meet the minimum cost ratio to achieve points. Overall the goal of
these credits is to support and enact change that will look to divert waste and increase the
recycling process within communities and the construction industry. The majority, if not all, of
the points available under this category are influenced solely or partly by the General Contractor
responsible for overseeing the proj ect in its entirety.

MR Credit 1.1 Building Reuse: Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof
(Conditionally Recommended)

One of the basic tenants of conservation is to not build at all. This credit serves to provide
opportunity to earn credits for renovation proj ects that reuse existing building stock. Additional
benefits sited for these points are to preserve cultural resources and preserve existing
neighborhood scale and character. MR Credit 1.1 relates to preserving 75% of the building
structural elements while MR credit 1.2 relates to preserving 95% of the defined required
elements, and MR credit 1.3 allows for a point for preserving 50% of interior non-structural
elements. MR credit 1.3 may be achieved without complying with MR Credit 1.1 or 1.2.

There is typical community support for keeping existing building stock in historic and
community supported building centers.









MR Credit 1.2 Building Reuse: Maintain 95% of Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof
(Conditionally Recommended)

Projects that meet the requirements for ME Credit 1.2 receive the point for ME Credit 1.1
as well.

MR Credit 1.3 Building Reuse: Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural elements
(Conditionally Recommended)

This credit is independent of MR Credit 1.1 and 1.2 and serves to allow a point for reusing
exiting non-structural elements such as interior walls and floor coverings. This credit is based on
square footage of the completed proj ect including any additions. This credit serves to reduce the
amount of waste produced from renovations and changes to existing floor plans. The key to this
credit is the percentage is based on the final proj ect' s square footage.

Material and Resources (MR) Credits 1.1 through 1.3 are difficult to estimate and are
highly proj ect specific but in most cases they will not be an additional cost compared to new
construction on a green site or demolition and rebuild on an existing site. One point to note with
regard to these credits is that if the threshold for use is not met, any material incorporated in a
new design may qualify to be counted in the waste diversion calculations (e.g., MR Credits 3.1
and 3.2) since it was essentially diverted by virtue of being incorporated in the new design.

MR Credit 2.1 Construction Waste Management: Divert 50% from Disposal
(Recommended)

Construction waste accounts for over 40% of landfill deposits. While only a fraction of
this amount accounts for new construction, approximately six percent, this credit seeks to reduce
construction waste leaving a j obsite by 50% while MR Credit 2.2 requires 75% of the waste
leaving a job site be sent for recycling or salvage.

MR Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management: Divert 75% from Disposal
(Recommended)

Both credit MR 2. 1 and 2.2 are highly dependent on both the commitment of the General
Contractor and the availability of landfill alternatives. In general it is agreed that wood, plastic,
and steel products may be recycled at no cost or slight profit. All other materials are highly
dependent on alternatives and options with regard to secondary use or even acceptance by
original supplier to accept returned waste product.

MR Credit 2.1 and 2.2 are determined by either weight or volume however the select
method must be used consistently throughout the job. Detailed recordkeeping is essential to
prove the claimed amount recycled. Strategies noted for this credit include recycling cardboard,
metal, brick, acoustical tile, concrete, plastic, glass, gypsum wallboard, and insulation. The
material can either be divided onsite or sent offsite to be separated. A key for success is to
develop goals and a diversion plan early on in the design process and modify as needed to reach
decided goal.









The cost range for these two credits will vary based on the size of the proj ect, the waste
divergence goal, the site location and associated local dumping costs, and the experience of both
the design and construction teams. There are two important factors that determine whether these
credits should be pursued. The first is the j obsite logistics and if there is room for staging
multiple receptors for waste. If there is not enough room for multiple bins and there is no option
for sorting trash offsite than this credit becomes unobtainable. The second is whether or not
there are local institutions available to receive the sorted waste. An example of this is the
collection and recycling of gypsum material at Rinker Hall on the UF campus. The general
contractor had to pay a premium for the gypsum supplier to accept the waste and transfer it back
to the plant over 100 miles away.

The GSA notes that a waste management plan is a team effort with several necessary steps
to ensure an effective plan. Figure B-1 illustrates the necessary steps of a successful waste
management plan.

Costs for CWM plans vary by size of jobsite, types of materials being recycled, local
tipping fees, regional recycling, and standard practices of the contractors working on the j ob.
The city of Seattle and its respective county, King County, issued a contractors guide to
recycling in 2002 (Venture 2002). This report provides worksheets and sample specifications
that may be used in developing a CWM plan.

The LCV for this credit ranges from 2 to 4 depending the experience of the
design/construction team, materials to be diverted, dumping fees, and any associated waste
management fee. The GSA estimates $0. 12/GSF for the courthouse proj ect for a total cost of
$31,658 as the high-end markup to subsidize a CWM plan to achieve the 50 percent level of
waste diversion. To achieve the 75 percent diversion rate the GSA model adds a lump sum
$20,000 to handle additional sorting and administration fees. This number is not substantiated in
any way and the report does provide the caveat that this percentage may be reached at no
additional cost depending on the types of materials diverted and ease of separation. This number
would raise the GSF estimate by $0.08 to a total of $0.20 GSF to achieve MR Credit 2.2.

MR Credit 3.1 Materials Reuse: 5% (Conditionally Recommended)

This goal of this credit is to reuse building products to reduce the demand for new products
and reduce the impacts of all the manufacturing processes that support new products. The
difficulty in attaining this credit is two-fold. Firstly, the desired product must be readily
available for reuse and secondly the cost is determined by cost of products in relationship to the
entire proj ect budget. MR Credit 3.1 is for a 5% Reuse percentage compared to the overall
budget and MR Credit 3.2 is for 10% Reuse ratio. The credit is defined as follows:

* Use salvaged, refurbished or reused materials such that the sum of these materials
constitutes at least 5%, based on cost, of the total value of materials on the project.

* Mechanical, electrical and plumbing components and specialty items such as elevators and
equipment shall not be included in this calculation. Only include materials permanently









installed in the proj ect. Furniture may be included, providing it is included consistently in
MR Credits 3-7.

Cost basis for this credit is covered under the MR Credit 3.2 Materials Reuse: 10% credit.

MR Credit 3.2 Materials Reuse: 10% (Conditionally Recommended)

The requirements for this credit match those of MR Credit 3.1 except for the increase in
percentage from five to 10 percent relative to the cost of the entire proj ect. Should this credit be
achieved the project would be awarded two points, one for meeting the requirements for MR
Credit 3.1 and the additional point for meeting the requirement for MR Credit 3.2.

This credit is difficult to achieve in large scale construction proj ects like those found on
university campuses. It may be viable for small buildings that present opportunities to used
salvaged material. The USGBC does not include reused items from the original site in these
cases thus making it even more difficult to achieve this credit. The only way to determine this
credit is to calculate the value of the salvaged material versus the total value of material used on
a project. The USGBC allows the use of 45% material factor, less MEP, labor, and equipment,
to be applied to the entire construction contract to estimate the total dollar value of all the
material contained in a job. For general estimating this will earn an LCV of 5.

MR Credit 4.1 Recycled Content: 10% (post-consumer + %/ pre-consumer) (Highly
Recommended)

This credit is directly supportive of the USGBC's stated goal of market transformation.
Their goal was to increase demand for products with recycled content such that corresponding
supplies should increase. For the most part this has occurred with products such as carpets and
flooring. The benefit of increased recycle content is to reduce the burden or demand for virgin
materials and reduce waste.

This, similar to other credits with ratio requirements, it best achieved by developing a
proj ect based goal and continuously monitoring progress as the j ob buyout and subcontractors
are signed to the project. Credit MR 4.2 raises this requirement from 10% to 20%. Cost basis
for this credit will be addressed under MR Credit 4.2 Recycled Content: 20% credit.

MR Credit 4.2 Recycled Content: 20% (post-consumer + %/ pre-consumer)
(Recommended)

As noted above this credit raises the recycled content requirement to 20% based on total
materials cost. At this level it may be necessary to view the proj ect from holistic view and
consider recycled content for products that may not be readily obvious. The credit is outlined as
follows:

*Use materials with recycled content such that the sum of post-consumer recycled content
plus one-half of the pre-consumer content constitutes an additional 10% beyond MR Credit
4. 1 (total of 20%, based on cost) of the total value of the materials in the project.









* The recycled content value of a material assembly shall be determined by weight. The
recycled fraction of the assembly is then multiplied by the cost of assembly to determine
the recycled content value. Mechanical, electrical and plumbing components and specialty
items such as elevators shall not be included in this calculation. Only include materials
permanently installed in the proj ect. Furniture may be included, providing it is included
consistently in MR Credits 3-7.

* Recycled content shall be defined in accordance with the International Organization of
Standards document, ISO 14021--Environmental labels and declarations-Self-declared
environmental claims (Type II environmental labeling).

* Post-consumer material is defined as waste material generated by households or by
commercial, industrial and institutional facilities in their role as end-users of the product,
which can no longer be used for its intended purpose.

* Pre-consumer material is defined as material diverted from the waste stream during the
manufacturing process. Excluded is reutilization of materials such as rework, regrind or
scrap generated in a process and capable of being reclaimed within the same process that
generated it.

The crucial influencing factors with MR Credit 4.1 and 4.2 is the ratios are based on cost
which involve items from several divisions and across several trades and only applies to the
dollar value of the portion of the material that is recycled not the entire dollar value of the whole
material. For example concrete consists of Portland cement, large aggregate, Eine aggregate,
water, and additive mixtures in various amounts depending on the design strength and purpose of
the concrete. If fly ash is used as replacement for Portland cement then only the value of the
cement replaced, based on the cost times the weight ratio relative to the total weight of concrete,
is calculated not the entire value of the placed concrete.

The GSA model notes a zero cost for MR-4.1:. Recycled Content, 5% due to the types of
structures and materials used facilitates the use of high recycled products, specifically steel and
concrete. This credit earns an LCV of 2. To achieve the minimum recycled content of 10% for
the MR-4.2 credit, the GSA study gives a range of no cost to moderate cost. The high-end cost
scenario assumes a lower percent recycled content for steel and the need to incorporate
additional building products in the calculation. The sole cost driver being the need to pay
additional shipping for 90% synthetic gypsum board that is made at only a limited number of
plants in the United States (US). Synthetic gypsum is made from byproducts of other
manufacturing process as opposed to natural gypsum that is mined. There is no cost difference
between the synthetic and natural products. The additional figure to cover shipping for higher
recycled content material is noted as $0.30/GSF or $79,33 1 for the courthouse proj ect.

MR Credit 5.1 Regional Materials: 10% Extracted, Processed and Manufactured
Regionally (Highly Recommended)

This credit is similar to several of those in this category in that its main influence is to
enact market change and support sustainability in a broader social and economic scale. By










supporting local processes the proj ect provides monetary payback to the local citizenry involved
in producing the goods. In addition there is the benefit and savings of limited transportation
costs and corresponding impacts to the environment. This credit is based on the cost of the
material value used in the product. Cost basis for this credit will be addressed under MR Credit
5.2: Regional Materials: 20% Extracted, Processed, and Manufactured Regionally.

MR Credit 5.2 Regional Materials: 20% Extracted, Processed and Manufactured
Regionally (Recommended)

This credit has been substantially reduced from the previous 50% requirement noted in
LEED 2.1. Similar to previous credits that increase the required percentage this credit would
provide both a point for meeting MR Credit 5.1 and MR Credit 5.2. The first step is to determine
the total material costs on site. If this is unknown it is acceptable to estimate this value as 45%
of the contract price. The second step is to determine the acquisition distance of the products
used on site. The third step is to determine the value of the regional materials used to produce
these products.

As noted previously the GSA report was based on LEED 2.1 which set the requirements
for MR-5.1 at 20% and MR-5.2 at 50%. LEED 2.2 currently lists the requirement levels for MR-
5.1 at 10% and MR 5.2 at 20%. This credit has changed also in that LEED 2.1 counted the entire
value of a product if it was assembled within 500 miles of the j obsite regardless of the origin of
the parts whereas LEED 2.2 considers only the value of the materials produced locally in
determining the final percentage. The estimating ofLCV scores is highly dependent on the
location of the j ob and the materials selected for construction. The predominate exterior walls on
the UF campus are redbrick and the predominant structural elements are steel and concrete, all of
which are produced with 500 miles of campus. The main influencing factors for this credit are
those materials which makeup the lion share of construction material costs. Should the job
incorporate traditional high value materials and if these materials are available within the 500
mile limit then the additional costs should be minimal to achieve these credits.

Sample big ticket items noted in the GSA report include the following (GSA 2004):

* Cast-in-place concrete
* Structural steel
* Stone/Brick
* Precast concrete panels
* Concrete masonry units
* Gypsum wall board
* Acoustical ceiling tiles

These credits receive an LCV of between 1 and 5 depending on the job location and construction
materials incorporated in design.









MR Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials (Conditionally Recommended)

This is another credit which serves to aid market transformation and support the use of
rapidly renewable resources as alternatives to traditional elements. An often cited example is the
use of bamboo flooring in lieu of hardwood flooring. Bamboo reaches full growth in
approximately five years whereas oak trees may take 20 years or more to reach full growth. By
using renewable resources with allow for increased production without long-term impacts. This
credit is also based on cost of material compared to total proj ect material costs.

Not all renewable products are suited for all commercial applications and caution needs to
be taken in the design process to ensure reliability and long-term integrity of products selected.
Sample of rapidly renewable materials include the following:

* Cork flooring
* Linoleum flooring
* Agrifiber substrates used in casework and partitions
* Bamboo flooring
* Wool/Natural fiber carpets

The USGBC has cut in half the minimum percentage necessary to achieve this credit from
5% to 2.5% with the revisions that took place in LEED 2.2. The GSA study did not pursue this
credit at the 5% level due to the difficulty in achieving this credit on mid- to large-scale proj ects.
This is an extremely difficult credit to achieve with only seven out of 1 11 or 6.3% of LEED 2.0
proj ects achieving this credit. UF has only applied for this credit on the Library West renovation
and expansion project. This credit is dependent on the amount, type, and differential cost
between traditional construction materials and rapidly renewable materials. As such it earns an
LCV of between 2 and 5.

MR Credit 7 Certified Wood (Recommended)

The goal of this credit is to increase market demand for wood harvested from
environmentally responsible forest managers that follow Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
guidelines. The FSC produces guidelines and criteria that wood harvesters and producers
subscribe to in their daily operations. This credit applies to wood products permanently installed
in the proj ect. A common critique of this point is that for a building that does not incorporate
structural or supporting wood products a single wood door purchased from a responsible
manufacturer would qualify for a point should it be the only wood door in the design scheme. In
defense of this point, more and more certified wood products are now available from suppliers at
lower costs. The difficulty of this credit at times may be the education of the contractors on the
job, tracking points of origin, and determining the correct percentages based on cost.

Costs for certified wood products have continued to decrease in the last ten years and the
price for FSC certified standard dimensional lumber is now equivalent to non-FSC certified
lumber (Depot 2007). Millstead Corporation is the sole supplier of wood products for the Home
Deport retail chain and reports that over 90% of its wood products are from old growth managed
production sites in North America (Depot 2007) and FSC products are given preference and









produced when feasible. The difficulty in rating this credit is that buildings will vary in the
amount and type of wood used in construction. Additionally a requirement for this credit
includes non-rented temporary shoring and bracing. For standard construction products this
earns an LCV credit of 2 however for proj ects with large amounts of specialty lumber this credit
could have an LCV range of between 2 and 5. The GSA courthouse study determined a cost
impact of $2.28/GSF for a total of $596,597. The majority of these costs, $395,394 worth or
66.3%, came from "Fixed Furnishings and Casework" and Judges' chambers "Fixed
Furnishings" associated with courtroom construction.

Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ)

Indoor Environmental Quality credits focus on increased ventilation and prescribed
standards for Indoor Air Quality (IAQ), reduction of material off-gassing, occupant control over
heating and lighting systems, and connecting indoor spaces with outdoor spaces by building
upon a biophillia based premises. As with all credits there are those which may be readily
achieved, like providing an on and off lighting switch for building occupants to have control of
their workspace, and credits that may be difficult to achieve such as daylight and views for 90%
of regularly occupied spaces for occupants, however the goals of this category are to provide a
better working environment for employees than traditional design schemes and guidelines.

EQ Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Method (Conditionally Recommended)

This credit provides two options, one for mechanically ventilated spaces and one for
naturally-ventilated spaces. The purpose of this credit serves to provide constant CO2
monitoring to ensure proper and safe levels of air quality within the building space.

This credit requires that the system in place be either self correcting or provide a
mechanism to alarm tenants of possible air quality deficiencies. The inclusion of this credit may
be heavily influenced by the number of building occupants and the type of work or processes
taking place onsite.

There are two keys to this credit. One is that the credit does not require the CO2 Sensors be
tied to outside ventilation damper to adjust flow of outside air for optimization. The second is
that it does not require a CO2 SCHSOT in CVery room. Sensors should be placed in large meeting
areas, common rooms, and rooms that are most distant from air handling equipment. The GSA
study lists 60 sensors (including tie-ins to BMS) at $1,080.00 each for a total cost of $64,800.00
or $0.25/GSF. This study yields a sensor per every 4,365/GSF as a benchmark for determining
the number of sensors. This credit earns an LCV of between 2 and 5 depending on the size of
the proj ect and the number of CO2 mOnitors required.

EQ Credit 2 Increased Ventilation (Conditionally Recommended)

This credit demands additional outdoor ventilation provided over standard inclusion rates
set forth in this category's Prerequisite 1 Minimum IAQ performance. The critique for this
credit is that conforming design systems usually require more energy and as such this credit
competes with reduced energy credits noted in the Energy and Atmosphere category. The credit









is divided into two options, one for mechanically ventilated spaces and one for naturally
ventilated spaces.

Several strategies may be incorporated to meet this goal. For mechanically ventilated
space heat recovery systems may be utilized to lesson energy costs. The GSA report states that
a well designed building should meet this credit with not additional construction costs. The only
caveat associated with this cost is the learning curve associated with performing and
documenting Air Diffusion Performance Index (ADPI) calculations for submittal with LEED
documents.

The GSA report provides an overview of this credit and states that although APDI
calculations are not typically performed for an HVAC submittal the calculation process typically
verifies the existing design and does not require any significant changes. The APDI calculation
process is more of a means of verifying and refining the initial design. This earns an LCV of 2.

EQ Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan: During Construction (Highly
Recommended)

Achieving this credit falls squarely on the shoulders of the general contractor and
mechanical contractor to produce and stick with a construction plan that meets the stated
requirement. There are synergies with regard to this credit with EQ Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ
Management Plan: Before Occupancy and EQ Credit 5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source
Control. As a requirement for achieving this credit, all absorptive materials must be protected.
This is where the control and oversight of the general contractor is required. The sequencing of
material installation is also a key in limiting the costs of temporary protection and possibility of
contamination.

The costs associated with this credit will greatly be determined by the differences between
standards and the credit requirements. A low-cost example may be that the contractor currently
follows SMACNA guidelines and will only add the cost of MERV 8 filters throughout the j ob
duration. A high-cost example would be a contractor unfamiliar with the guidelines that adds
additional labor and management to oversee and document the SMACNA process as well as
additional materials.

The GSA study provides a range costs starting with a low-cost estimate of $8,519.00, or
$0.03/GSF, to a high-cost estimate of $45,452.00, or $0. 17/GSF to achieve this credit. Based on
this information this credit receives a LCV of between 3 and 5 depending on the size of the
building.

EQ Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan: Before Occupancy (Highly
Recommended)

This credit addresses the state of the building after construction completion and prior to or
immediately upon occupancy of the building. The purpose of this credit is flush out the higher
levels of off gassing associated with newly completed construction. Paints, adhesives, and
carpets are all associated with detrimental elements that in high concentrations could negatively
affect tenants. This credit provides two options, one of which is flushing the building with









specified quantities of outside air and the other is a prescribed Environmental Protection Agency
provision to prove the quality of the air. This credit falls at a very busy and difficult time during
the construction process and special attention must be paid to ensure proper documentation to
meet the specifics and intent of the credit.

The difficulty with this credit is that for Option 1 there can be no punch-list work taking
place that involves VOC emitting toxins and since the HVAC system will be running in flush
mode there can be no HVAC balancing work done at this time. Other commissioning activities
such as fire alarm testing, lighting controls, conveying system testing, and communication
system testing may take place at this time. If this time is set aside during the original
construction schedule and allowable testing takes place in conjunction with the flush-out then
there should be no additional costs. However, if this option is considered a separate activity
specifically designated to achieve this credit then there would be a general conditions costs
incurred by the contractor for time and personnel to oversee the flush-out process. Similarly, if
Option two is selected there would be additional testing costs associated with testing and
verifying results. Regardless of which option is selected the filters associated with all HVAC
equipment would be cleaned or replaced at the end of the flush-out period. It is generalized that
the testing requirements and general conditions costs would be similar and the additional costs
would be associated with the filter replacements. The GSA study estimates $21,330, or
$0.08/GSF, to cover contractor premiums and filter replacements for Option one. This earns an
LCV score of 3.

EQ Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials: Adhesives and Sealants (Highly Recommended)

EQ Credit 4 Low Emitting Materials defines acceptable levels of off gassing for common
building elements such as adhesives, paints, carpets, and composite wood products. Each of
these product groups have their own set of standards or associated trade requirements to help
select designated acceptable materials. The overall applicability of products is designated as
those products installed with the weatherproofing barrier. Exterior paints and the like are
excluded from the credit requirements. A key to achieving all points associated with EQ Credit
4 Low-Emitting Materials is to include the requirements for low VOC products within the
projects specifications and in all related construction documents. Common products for
inclusion are noted as flooring adhesives, fire-stopping sealants, caulking, duct sealants and
mastic, and plumbing adhesives. The costs associated with this credit will be discussed under
EQ Credit 4.4 Low Emitting Materials: Composite Woods.

EQ Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials: Paints and Coatings (Highly Recommended)

As with all points available under EQ Credit 4 Low-Emitting Materials the obj ect of the
category is to reduce or limit the quantity of indoor air contaminants that are irritating or harmful
to builders and occupants. The costs associated with this credit will be discussed under EQ
Credit 4.4 Low Emitting Materials: Composite Woods.

EQ Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials: Carpet Systems (Highly Recommended)

Similar all credits that fall under EQ Credit 4.3 this credit requires carpeting products to
meet a strict standard designed to limit product off gassing. Strategies for this credit include









clear specifications and product requirements throughout the construction documents and care
during installation should adhesives be used. Products may be either certified under the Green
Label Plus program or be tested by qualified independent laboratories to ensure product
appropriateness. The costs associated with this credit will be discussed under EQ Credit 4.4 Low
Emitting Materials: Composite Wood.

EQ Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials: Composite Wood (Highly Recommended)

The purpose of this credit is to limit exposure to urea-formaldehyde resins used in wood
products. Emphasis on the above should be placed on laminating adhesives used on-site and in
shop production of finished materials. The inclusion of low-emitting material credits have truly
transformed and educated the market place regarding low-VOC and urea-formaldehyde free
wood products. Paints, carpets, and sealants are currently available at no additional costs
compared to their traditional counterparts. EQ Credits 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 all earn an LCV of 2.

Unlike its EQ Credit 4 predecessors, EQ Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials: Composite
Wood currently carries a premium compared to its traditionally manufactured counterparts. The
additional cost for this credit would be predicated on the amount of wood used in the building
and strategy used in selecting the wood types used to meet the required percentage. For low-
VOC wood interior applications the GSA study (GSA 2004) lists costs for a traditional solid core
single door at $1,013.14 and a low-VOC solid core single door at $1,126.91 which equates to an
11.2% premium for 'greener' doors. The overall increase in budget for the GSA study, which
focused mainly only on interior construction and furnishing wood products, showed a budget
increase from $804, 176 dollars to $868, 187 dollars, or a 7.9% premium, for low-VOC wood
products. Since this credit is largely design and feasibility oriented it earns an LCV value of
between 3 and 5.

EQ Credit 5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control (Highly Recommended)

This credit seeks to control cross contamination of dirt, pollutants, and cleaning materials
via design schemes that limit intrusion, isolate, and ventilate sources of the contamination. The
credit is divided into three main criteria all of which must be met to earn this point. The first
criteria address limiting outside pollutants from entering the building via various forms of debris,
the second looks to contain cleaning supply off gassing, and the third seeks to control dust and
particles via improved air filtration.

* Employ permanent entryway systems at least six feet long in the primary direction of
travel to capture dirt and particulates from entering the building at all entryways that are
directly connected to the outdoors. Acceptable entryway systems include permanently
installed grates, grilles, or slotted systems that allow for cleaning underneath. Roll-out
mats are only acceptable when maintained on a weekly basis by a contracted service
organization. Qualifying entryways are those that serve as regular entry points for building
users.

* Where hazardous gases or chemicals may be present or used (including garages,
housekeeping/laundry areas and copying/printing rooms), exhaust each space sufficiently
to create negative pressure with respect to adj acent spaces with the doors to the room









closed. For each of these spaces, provide self-closing doors and deck to deck partitions or a
hard lid ceiling. The exhaust rate shall be at least 0.50 ofm/sq.ft., with no air recirculation.
The pressure differential with the surrounding spaces shall be at least 5 Pa (0.02 inches of
water gauge) on average and 1 Pa (0.004 inches of water) at a minimum when the doors to
the rooms are closed.

*In mechanically ventilated buildings, provide regularly occupied areas of the building with
air filtration media prior to occupancy that provides a Minimum Efficiency Reporting
Value (MERV) of 13 or better. Filtration should be applied to process both return and
outside air that is to be delivered as supply air.

This credit needs to be addressed at the onset of design to ensure that all three criteria are
considered. Should the criteria be included in the design scheme early on there should limited or
no additional costs. Similar to other design credits the cost associated with this credit is largely
dependent on the variance between considerations accounted for in an existing standard and
those detailed by the USGBC credit requirements. For example the GSA considers walk-off
mats and segregated exhausts for all j anitor closets as part of their existing building program and
not additions to achieve this LEED credit. The GSA considers this a no cost credit. As for
university proj ects, should this credit be tackled early on in the design process the credit will
earn an LCV of between 2 and 4 depending on the amount of square footage space influenced by
this credit and existing applicable standards.

EQ Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems: Lighting (Conditionally Recommended)

The design intent for this credit is to give occupants control over the building systems that
may directly affect performance such as task lighting and thermal comfort. EQ Credit 6.1
Controllability of Systems: Lighting places design emphasis on individual and group control
over lighting systems.

Both criteria must be met in order to achieve this point. Key design element is to
incorporate task lighting into the overall lighting and energy design scheme. The key to this
credit is that the minimum requirement from the USGBC to earn this credit is the availability of
an on/off switch for individual and multi-occupant spaces. Designing beyond the minimum
switch requirement with techniques such as daylighting sensors, adjustable lights and switch
controls, and motion sensing devices may add extra costs depending on the strategies applied to
the project. This credit earns an LCV of between 2 and 4 depending on the complexity, or
simplicity, of the control and lighting systems.

EQ Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems: Thermal (Conditionally Recommended)

Similar to lighting control design program, the thermal comfort credit places an emphasis
on individual and group control over thermal systems. Comfort system criteria must be met for
both individual and group occupant space. A key to this credit is to note that occupants need to
have control of at least one of the conditions for thermal comfort, either air temperature, radiant
temperature, air speed, or humidity. This credit provides various options and strategies for
achieving its goals. Any number of individual design techniques, individually or in conjunction
with other techniques, may be used at various costs to meet the requirements.









Since the GSA utilizes under floor air distribution systems in its basic building program it
considers this credit a no cost option. For programs not utilizing an under floor distribution
system then options such as operable windows and individual controls become the main
strategies for achieving this credit. This credit earns an LCV of between 2 and 5 depending on
the base building program.

EQ Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort: Design (Recommended)

This credit utilizes a design standard developed to maximize the optimum range of
temperature and humidity based on the building site's given climate range. The essential point
of this credit is to include ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 from the onset of the design scheme.
Also consider the impacts and synergies with other EQ credits such as EQ Credit I and EQ
Credit 2. Should the existing building program include ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 then this
credit earns an LCV of 1 or 2 as a no cost item. Should the current standard not be included then
a building takeoff for the required materials and installation costs would be needed. This earns
an LCV of between 1 and 5.

EQ Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort: Verification (Conditionally Recommended)

This is a unique credit in that it requires a plan for data collection that will take place six to
18 months after occupancy. This point allows for follow-up data to be collected and analyzed in
order to verify system performance. The noted standard above provides guidelines for follow-up
and the USGBC has provided a point for those design teams to receive credit for capitulating.

This is a non-construction cost and is dependent on the amount of surveys and
measurements needed to be in accord with ASHREA Standard 55-2004. Unless considered part
of the formal existing building program this would be considered an added costs for most
building construction budgets since the work takes place six to 18 months after building
completion. This earns an LCV cost estimate of 3.

EQ Credit 8.1 Daylight and Views: Daylight 75% of Spaces (Highly Recommended)

Daylighting may contribute to energy efficiency as well as providing for increases in
occupant productivity and health. There needs to be attention paid for balancing daylighting
goals and those of space planning and work function. The design intent is to maximize interior
daylighting schemes. High performance glazing should be considered throughout the design
plan.

Whether or not to pursue this credit is a design consideration. Once the decision has been
made to pursue this credit then the costs become part of the associated requirement costs and
subsequently part of the construction budget.

This credit would earn an LCV value of 5 for most buildings. It is important to note that
daylight enhancing louvers were the significant additional cost, 41% of total identified additional
LEED costs, with regard to design strategy pursued in Rinker Hall. Should a strategy been
developed that did not rely on this technology it may have been completed for far less.









EQ Credit 8.2 Daylight and Views: Views for 90% of Spaces (Recommended)

This credit follows the trend biophilia hypothesis that humans have a need to be connected
to the outdoors and whereby views of the outdoors enhance productivity. This need results in
proposed benefits to human performance, health, and emotional wellbeing (Griffin 2007).

Design schemes used to meet these criteria are slender building footprints, lower partition
heights, and interior glazing. The GSA study (GSA 2004) notes the following likely strategies
for achieving this credit:

* Minimize number of enclosed spaces within the building and provide significant "open"
work areas.

* Minimize number of enclosed spaces located along the building perimeter.

* Incorporate view windows (interior glazing panels) in enclosed spaces. This applies to
spaces along the perimeter of the building that may block views to the exterior and to
interior enclosed spaces.

* Select systems furniture with at least some low-height panels to allow for "view corridors."

The primary issue with this credit is whether or not this type of connectivity to the
outdoors is feasible given the buildings program design. If the general design principles provide
for this opportunity then it is a matter of determining the additional costs associated with
achieving this credit. Although the GSA courthouse study did not determine this credit feasible
due to the security concerns it did provide an estimate of costs for an office remodeling proj ect
(GSA 2004). The design provided for the addition of 9,700 square feet of glazing panels to
allow for view access. The panels measuring five feet by 3 and a half feet cost approximately
$346,371 or $1.13/GSF. Due to the costs being directly tied to the design of the structure and
space needs of the owner this credit earns an LCV of between 2 and 5.

ID Credits 1 to 1.4 Innovation in Design (Conditionally Recommended)

* Credit 1.1 (1 point) In writing, identify the intent of the proposed innovation credit, the
proposed requirement for compliance, the proposed submittals to demonstrate compliance,
and the design approach (strategies) that might be used to meet the requirements.

* Credit 1.2 (1 point) Same as Credit 1.1

* Credit 1.3 (1 point) Same as Credit 1.1

*Credit 1.4 (1 point) Same as Credit 1.1

*Credit 2 (1 point) Having a LEED Accredited Professional (AP) involved with the j ob at
the earliest point possible.









Currently the USGBC allows for up to four exemplary credits to be submitted under the
Innovation and Design Category. Exemplary Credits are those credits which exceed existing
credit requirements by a defined percentage or amount or surpass the intent of the credit based on
predetermined measure. There are a total of sixteen possible exemplary credits of which four
will be allowed to be submitted under the Innovation and Design Category. Exemplary credits
are available for the following items und LEED 2.2:

* Sustainable Sites Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation Create and submit to the
USGBC an overall transportation plan for the proj ect site noting the benefits and savings
of incorporated techniques. This credit eamns an LCV between 2 and 3 based soft costs
involved in producing and documenting the plan and whether or not the credit was chosen
at the start of the proj ect.

* Sustainable Sites Credit 5.1 Site Development Protect or Restore Habitat -
Requirement is to protect or restore an additional 25% of the site for a total of 75% of the
site. This is a site dependent and design program dependent credit earning an LCV of 2.

* Sustainable Sites Credit 5.2 Maximize Open Space Requirement involves doubling the
amount of open space required on a proj ect. This is a design dependent cost and given a
LCV of 2.

* Sustainable Sites Credit 7. 1 Heat Island Effect Non-roof Requirement is for 100%
albedo surfaces or 100% of the parking to be covered. This credit earns an LCV of
between 2 and 5 depending on the options and techniques used in achieving this credit.

* Sustainable Sites Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect Roof Requirements are for a 100%
vegetative roof design. This credit earns and LCV of between 3 and 5.
* Water Efficiency Credit 2 Innovative Waste Water Technologies Requirements 100%
reduction of potable water for sewage conveyance or to process 100% of wastewater
onsite. Under LEED 2.2 this would involve an LCV of between 2 and 5.

* Water Efficiency Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction by 30% Requirements are to reduce
overall potable water usage by an additional 10% for a 40% cumulative reduction.
Depending on the design strategies and availability of grey water this credit would eamn an
LCV of between 2 and 5.

* Energy and Atmosphere Credit 6 Green Power Requirements are to double minimum
amount of power purchased to 70% or to double the minimum length of contract time to
four years. Depending on the amount of power and surcharge for green power this credit
earns an LVC of between 3 and 5.

* Materials and Resources Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% from
Disposal Requirements for this credit are to raise the amount of waste diverted an
additional 20% for a 95% total waste diversion rate. In large scale construction this credit
seems extremely difficult to achieve, as such it eamns an LCV credit of between 3 and 5










depending on the materials used in construction and the waste management plan developed
for the j ob.

* Materials and Resources Credit 3.2 Materials Reuse, 10% The Requirements for this
credit are to increase the reuse percentage by five resulting in a minimum 15% reuse rate.
This cost would have been calculated on a job by job basis, as a result it eamns an LCV of
between 2 and 5.

* Materials and Resources Credit 4.2 Recycled Content, 20% Requirements for this credit
are to increase the recycled content percentage to 30%. Depending on the materials
required this earns an LCV of between 2 and 5.

* Materials and Resources Credit 5.2 Regional Materials, 20% Extracted, Processed, and
Manufactured Requirements are to raise the minimum requirements 20% for a total of
40%. The GSA study lists products available for most proj ects that easily meets this
requirement as a result this eamns an LCV of 2.

* Materials and Resources Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable material 2.5% total materials value
Requirements for exemplary performance are to raise the percentage an additional 2.5%
for a total of 5%. This earns an LCV of between 2 and 5.

* Materials and Resources Credit 7 Certified Wood 50% wood-based materials -
Requirements for exemplary performance are to raise the wood obtained from certified
forests an additional 45% to a minimum of 95%. This eamns an LCV of between 2 and 5.

* Indoor Environmental Quality 8. 1 Daylight and Views, Daylight 75% of spaces -
Requirements for exemplary performance are to provide daylight for 95% of the building
spaces. This earns an LCV of between 2 and 5.

* Indoor Environmental Quality 8.2 Daylight and Views, Views for 90 % Requirements
are to exceed the 90% threshold established for this credit. The USGBC notes that this
credit will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This earns an LCV of between 2 and 5.

ID Credit 2: Innovation and Design LEED Accredited Professional (AP)

The USGBC provides testing to certify individuals as LEED Accredited Professionals.
There are no educational prerequisites or qualifications established for taking the exam. Once an
individual takes and passes the exam they are allowed to note their qualifications as a LEED
Accredited professional. The focus of the exam is on the understanding and interpretation of
LEED credits and the processing of LEED documentation for submittal and review to the
USGBC. The intent of the credit is to encourage members of the build team to have a working
understanding of the LEED process to facilitate integrated design and streamline the submission
of credit documents.

The GSA, IHS, and the University of Florida' s Facility and Planning Department have
several staff members that are LEED accredited and do not consider this an additional cost.









There are, however, two distinctly different design team approaches that have evolved regarding
LEED AP's and how projects are coordinated and processed. The first approach is that of an
experienced design team with several members having LEED experience and with team
members having the ability to review, coordinate, and submit LEED documentation directly.
Typically there is a central coordinator that tracks work and oversees the process and serves at
the single source of contact with the Owner and the USGBC. The USGBC estimates this type of
work to take between 80 and 150 hours. A cost estimate for this work would range between
$8,000 and $15,000 for overseeing the process. The second approach is one in which the LEED
AP serves as the sole coordinator, reviewer, and submitter of LEED project data.

The difference between the two approaches is the amount of time the LEED AP spends in
either creating supporting documentation or reviewing each credit in detail. An example of this
might be the difference, in time and effort, between submitting the documentation for the Water
Efficiency Credit 1.1: Water Efficient Landscaping and reviewing the calculations and
supporting documentation prior to submitting to the USGBC. The first being a simple transfer of
information with little time invested and the latter taking several hours to ensure the proper
information is provided and is correct. UF's Facility and Planning Department estimates that
this takes twice the amount of time as estimated by the USGBC resulting in a cost estimate of
between $16,000 and $30,000. UF processes all records submitted to the USGBC as part of their
Proj ect Managers general responsibilities and considers these functions as no additional costs.

Summary

The focus of this appendix was two-fold, firstly to provide an outline of the processes the
University of Florida Facilities and Planning department follows with regard to achieving LEED
credits and secondly to provide a summary of the individual LEED prerequisite and credit
requirements.









Table B-1. University of Florida LEED Credit Ratings
Rating Description
Required (Req) Design criteria is either a LEED prerequisite or
falls under a FPC directive.
Highly Recommended (HR) Designated as good building practice.
Recommended (R) Provides benefits that can be easily justified,
however must be tested in the context of the
specific design solution.
Conditionally Recommended (CR) Criteria is beneficial in some applications,
however may be inappropriate in others.


Table B-2. Bike rack and shower facilities for commercial users
Construction
Number of FTE Construction Shower cost
occupants Bike racks (5%) cost estimate facilities (0.5%) estimate
33 2 $100 1 $5,457

100 5 $220 1 $5,457

300 15 $660 2 $10,914

950 48 $2100 5 $27,282




















General Contractor
Develop formal jobsite CWM plan.




General Contractor or Waste Mananer
Sorting, hauling, and documenting tasks.



Figure B-1. Construction waste management plan implementation


Design Team
Develop a Construction Waste Management
(CWM) Specification and overall proj ect goal
(i.e., 50% Diverted waste). Include in all
Contract Documents.









LIST OF REFERENCES


Beach, L. R., and Connolly, T. (2005). The psychology of decision making: People in
organizations, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks.

Crowe, T. J., and Noble, J. S. (1998). "Multi-attribute analysis of ISO 9000 registration using
AHP." International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 15(2), 205-222.

Depot, H. (2007). "Millstead Wood Purchasing Policy." Atlanta. www.homedepot.com (Last
accessed March 7, 2007).

Eijadi, D., Vaidya, P., Reinertsen, J., and Kumar, S. (2002). "Introducing comparative analysis to
the LEED system: A case for rational and regional application." Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Berkeley. http://repositories. cdlib. org/ibnl/LBNL-51291 (Last
accessed May 13, 2007).

FDE (2006). "Florida's energy act." Florida Department of Energy, Tallahassee.
http://www.dep. state.fl.us/energy/fla_energy/incentives.ht (Last accessed June 1, 2006).

Fisk, W. J. (2000). "Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their
relationships with building energy efficiency." Annual Review of Energy and'
Environment, 25, 537-566.

Foxon, T. "Applying systems thinking and practice for promoting sustainable innovation."
Science and' Tecnology Policy Research, Sussex, England, 15.

FSEC (2006). "Florida's building energy use." Florida Solar Energy Center University of Central
Florida, Orlando, FL. http ://www.ffsecuucf~edu/ (Last accessed June 1, 2006).

Geshwiler, M. (2003). "ASRAE green guide." W. Stephen Comstock, Atlanta, GA, 170.

Griffin, C. (2007). "An introduction to biophilia and the built environment." Rocky Mountain
Institute, Berkely. http://www.rmi .org/sitepages/pidl1079.php (Last accessed March 10,
2007).

Gifford, R. (2002). Environmentalpsychology:principles and practice, Optimal Books, Colville,
WA.

Grumman, D. L. (2003). "ASHRAE green guide." American Society of Heating, Refrigerant,
and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA, 170.

GSA. (2004). "GSA LEED cost study final report." GS-11P-99-M\~AD-0565, U.S. General
Service Administration, Washington, DC.

Heschong-Mahone-Group (1999). "Daylighting in schools an investigation into the
relationship between daylighting and human performance." The Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, Fair Oaks, CA.











IHS. (2006). "LEED cost evaluation study." Deparment of Health and Human Services Indian
Health Services, Rockville, MD.

IISD. (2004). "Perceptions and definitions of social responsibility." Intemnational Institute for
Sustainable Development, Winnipeg.

Kats, G. "The costs and financial benefits of green buildings." USGBC Annual Conference,
Pittsburgh, PA.

Kibert, C. (2002). Construction ecology:nature as the basis for green buildings, Spon Press,
London ; New York.

Lyle, J. T. (1994). Regenerative design for sustainable development, John Wiley, New York.

McGraw-Hill. (2006). "Green building smart market report." Lexington, MA.

Morris, P. (2004). "Examining the cost of green." Davis Langdon, Seattle, WA.
http://www. davisl angdon. com/USA/Research/ResearchFinder/2004-Examiig-h-ost-
of-Green/

Norris, G. A., and Marshall, H. E. (1995). "Multiattribute decision analysis method for
evaluating buildings and building systems." NISTIR 5663, National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.

Odum, H. T. (2001). "An energy hierarchy law for biogeochmecial cycles. In Emergy Synthesis,
Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodolgy." Center for Environmental Policy,
Gainesville, FL.

OEMC (2003). "A high performance design success story: North Boulder Recreation Center
earns a silver." Govemnor's Office of Energy Management and Conservation, Denver, CO.
http ://www.colorado.gov/rebuildco/success/loca/ole~e~t (Last accessed May
15, 2007).

OPPAGA. (2006). "Higher education facility construction costs are reasonable; some
improvements could maximize use of campus classroom space." 06-31, Office of
Program Policy Analysis and Govemnment Accountability, Tallahassee, FL.

Pearce, D. W., and Warford, J. J. (1993). World a without end:economics, environment, and
sustainable development : summary, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

PECI. (2002). "Establishing commissioning costs." Portland Energy Conservation, Inc., Portland.

Saaty, T. L. (1982). Decision making for leaders, Wadsworth, Inc., Belmont.










Schendler, A., and Udall, R. (2005). "LEED is broken .. Let's fix it." Aspen.
http://www. aspensnowmass.com/environment/news. cfm (Last accessed May 22, 2007).

Shabecoff, P. (2000). Earth rising, Island Press, Washington, DC.

Steele, J. (1997). Sustainable architecture, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Su, S. Y. W., Dujmovic, J., Batory, D. S., Navathe, S. B., and Elnicki, R. (1987). "A cost-benefit
decision model: analysis, comparison, and selection of data management systems." ACM\~
Transaction on Database Systems, 12(3), 472-520.

Torcellini, P., Pless, S., Deru, M., Griffith, B., Long, N., and Judkoff, R. (2006). "Lessons
learned from case studies of six high-performance buildings." National Renewable
Energy Labratory, Golden, CO.

UN. (1993). Agenda 21 : progranane of action for sustainable development ; Rio Declaration on
environment and developnzent;Statenent ofForest PI ineL iie the~ f lrinal text of agreements
negotiated by governments at the thrited Nations conference on environment and
development (UNCED), 3-14 June 1992, Rio de JanJJJJJJJJ~~~~~~~~~eiro Brazil, United Nations, New
York, NY.

USGBC. (2000). "Making the business case for high performance green buildings." United
States Green Building Council, Washington, D.C.

USGBC (2007). "USGBC webpage." Washington, DC. www.usgbc.org (Last accessed June 1,
2007).

van Bueren, E. M., and Priemus, H. (2002). "Institutional barriers to sustainable construction."
Environzental Planning, 29, 75 -86.

Venture, B. a. I. R. (2002). "Contractors guide Save money and resources through job-site
recycling and waste prevention." King County Solid Waste Division, Seatle, WA.

Wilson, A. (2005). "Making the case for green building." Environnzental Building News, 14(4),
12.

WCED. (1987). "Our common future." United Nations World Commission for Environment and
Development, Oxford, England.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

James Sullivan's professional and education background leading to this degree is quite

diverse. Upon graduating from Clearwater High School, Clearwater, Florida, in 1984 he applied

and was accepted to the University of Florida, Gainesville. After successfully graduating in four

years with an advertising degree, he was offered a graduate position in the College of Journalism

and Communications. He completed a Masters of Arts in Mass Communications within two

years and turned his attention to the business world. During his college years Jim had worked as

a general laborer, painter, landscape contractor, and rough carpenter. After a brief stint with

Arthur Anderson he moved toward the consulting field and spent the better part of six years

traveling the world working for BPA International. Having married a medical student who

"matched" in Gainesville, he accepted a position at the university, conducting statistical analyses

in the field of pediatric oncology. While working on this research, he was given the opportunity

to take additional course work at UF. After taking classes for several years and balancing

fulltime work with full-time school and a teaching assistant position, he resigned from his

research post to focus on the field of building construction. He worked for the Hines Company

as a construction manager during the summer of 2001 and as a proj ect manager with the Clark

Construction Company in Bethesda, Maryland, after graduating in December 2001. He was

accepted into the Ph.D. program at the University of Florida in the fall of 2003. During the 2003

to 2004 academic calendar Jim worked as a teaching assistant in the soils lab as well as a

lecturer for the building materials course. Starting with the fall of 2005 he was awarded the

Rinker Fellowship for research studies. During this time Jim has also worked outside the college

giving lectures regarding green building and design. Upon the completion of his degree in

summer 2007 Jim accepted a position at UF lecturing in the field of building construction.





PAGE 1

1 DECISION MODEL FOR PUBLIC SECT OR ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS IN FLORIDA By JAMES G. SULLIVAN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 James G. Sullivan

PAGE 3

3 To my family; thank you

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My thanks and appreciation is extended to th e entire Blaney family for their guidance, concern, and support throughout my life. If it was not for Bill, I would have never developed my fascination for hardhats and dr afting tables. My gratitude to Dr. Charles Kibert for his inspirational leadership, and thanks to the entire staff at the M.E. Rinke r, Sr., School of Building construction for their generosity and seemingly endless patience. To Dr. James Lynch and his staff I am enduringly beholden. Finally I acknowledge my friends classmates, and students for their support, for I ra rely travel alone.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................10 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................12 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 15 Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........15 Sustainability Defined ............................................................................................................16 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................. .....16 Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... .....17 Methodology ................................................................................................................... ........17 Research Objectives and Limitations .....................................................................................18 Objective 1 .......................................................................................................................18 Objective 2 .......................................................................................................................18 Objective 3 .......................................................................................................................19 Objective 4 .......................................................................................................................19 Objective 5 .......................................................................................................................19 Limitation 1 .....................................................................................................................19 Limitation 2 .....................................................................................................................19 Limitation 3 .....................................................................................................................19 Limitation 4 .....................................................................................................................20 Limitation 5 .....................................................................................................................20 Limitation 6 .....................................................................................................................20 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................22 Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........22 Defining Green ................................................................................................................24 Designing Green ..............................................................................................................25 Costing Green ..................................................................................................................26 UFs First Green Project Rinker Hall ...........................................................................28 Sustainable Construction ...................................................................................................... ..29 Driving Forces ........................................................................................................................33 Business Case for Green .........................................................................................................34 First-Cost Benefits ...........................................................................................................35 Building Performance Benefits .......................................................................................36 Health and Productiv ity Benefits .....................................................................................37 Environmental Benefits ................................................................................................... 40 Social Benefits .................................................................................................................41 Barriers to Sustainable Design ................................................................................................ 43

PAGE 6

6 Local Adoption of LEED Programs .......................................................................................44 Gainesville and Sarasota .................................................................................................. 45 Market Trends .................................................................................................................45 Florida ....................................................................................................................... .......46 Florida Universities and Community Colleges C onstruction Background ..................... 47 Funding for University Projects ......................................................................................48 Construction Costs for Postsecondary Projects ...............................................................49 UF, FSU, and UCF Cost Comparison ............................................................................. 49 University of Florida LEED History ......................................................................................51 Cost Impact of LEED Credits .................................................................................................53 Evaluation of LEED Prerequisites .......................................................................................... 55 Cost Anchoring and Adjusting ...............................................................................................55 Florida Code and LEED Prerequisites ............................................................................57 Sustainable Site Prerequisite ........................................................................................... 59 Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 1 Funda mental Commissioning ...........................59 Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 2 Minim um Energy Performance ........................ 62 Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 3 CF C Red uction in HVAC and R Equipment .... 62 Materials and Resources Prer equisite 1 Storage and Co llection of Recyclables ............ 62 Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 1 ..................................................................63 Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisi te 2 En vironmental Tobacco Smoke .............. 63 Separation of Preference and Cost .......................................................................................... 65 3 DECISION MODEL METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 81 Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........81 Current Building Method ........................................................................................................81 Existing Delivery Method Performance Evaluation ...............................................................82 Global Performance Level ......................................................................................................83 Goal Identification and Program Assessment ......................................................................... 84 Decision to Change ............................................................................................................ .....85 Logical Scoring of Preferences ...............................................................................................87 Sustainable Requirements and Param eter Tree ...................................................................... 87 Preference Analysis Model ..................................................................................................... 89 Multi-attribute Decision Analysis (MADA) ................................................................... 89 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Detail .......................................................................91 Preference Weighting of LEED Alternatives .................................................................. 95 Cost Analysis Model ...............................................................................................................96 Costing Assumptions and Limitations ............................................................................. 97 Cost Preference Analysis .................................................................................................98 Ranking of Competitive Systems ........................................................................................... 99 Decision ..................................................................................................................................99 Transition to More Sustainable Methods .............................................................................. 100 Sustainable Building Practices in Operation ........................................................................ 100 4 DECISION MODEL FUNCTIONS ..................................................................................... 109 Introduction .................................................................................................................. .........109

PAGE 7

7 Preference Analysis Model ................................................................................................... 109 Cost Analysis Model .............................................................................................................112 Cost Preference Analysis ......................................................................................................113 Ranking of Competitive Systems ......................................................................................... 114 Decision (Selection of Best Alternative) ..............................................................................114 Transition to More Sustainabl e Practices (Trend Analysis) ................................................. 114 5 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... ......131 Model Summary ................................................................................................................. ..131 UFs No-Cost LEED Certification .......................................................................................131 Sample Output by Preference for Identical Project Data Input ............................................132 UF Based Preference-Cost Analysis .............................................................................133 High-Low Cost Analysis ...............................................................................................133 Outcome Impacts ..................................................................................................................135 Case Study ............................................................................................................................135 6 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 146 APPENDIX A LEED PROJECT CHECKLIST ...........................................................................................148 B LEED OVERVIEW ..............................................................................................................151 Introduction .................................................................................................................. .........151 Incorporation of UF Directiv es and LEED Credit Ratings .................................................. 151 LEED Credit Summary .........................................................................................................151 Sustainable Sites (SS) ........................................................................................................ ...151 SS FPC Directive Prerequisite 2 Cultu ral Resources Protection (Required) ............. 152 SS FPC Directive Prerequisite 3 Cl ean W ater Protection (Required) ........................ 152 SS Credit 1 Site Selection (Highly Recomm ended) ......................................................152 SS Credit 2 Urban Redevelopment/Dev elopm ent Density (Recommended) ................152 SS Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopm ent (Conditionally Recommended) .....................153 SS Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access (Highly Recommended) .......................................................................................................... 153 SS Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation: Bicycle Storage an d Changing Rooms (Highly Recommended) .............................................................................................153 SS Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation: Low Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles (Recomm ended) ......................................................................................................... 154 SS Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation: Parking Capacity (Highly Recommended) .......................................................................................................... 155 SS Credit 5.1 Site Development: Protect or Restore Habitat (Highly Recommended) .......................................................................................................... 155 SS Credit 5.2 Site Development: Maximize Open Space (Highly Recommended) ..... 155 SS Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design: Quantity Control (Recommended) ........................ 156 SS Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design: Quality Control (Highly R ecommended) .............. 157

PAGE 8

8 SS Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect: Non-Roof (Highly Recomm ended) ........................ 157 SS Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effec t: Roof (Highly Recommended) .................................157 SS Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction (Highly Recomm ended) ..................................158 Water Efficiency (WE) ......................................................................................................... 159 WE Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Lands caping: Reduce by 50% (Highly Recommended) .......................................................................................................... 159 WE Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscapi ng: No Potable W ater Use or No Irrigation (Highly Recommended) ............................................................................. 159 WE Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies (Highly Recommended) ...............160 WE Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction: 20% (Highly Recommended) ........................... 160 WE Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction: 30% (Highly Recommended) ........................... 161 Energy and Atmosphere (EA) .............................................................................................. 161 EA Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance (Highly Recommended) .......................... 162 EA Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy (Conditionally Recommended) .................... 163 EA Credit 3 Enhanced Commi ssioning (Highly Recommended) ................................. 163 EA Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Ma nagem ent (Conditionally Recommended) .......164 EA Credit 5 Measurement and Veri fication (Highly Recomm ended) .......................... 164 EA Credit 6 Green Power (Conditionally Recommended) ........................................... 165 Materials and Resources (MR) ............................................................................................. 166 MR Credit 1.1 Building Reuse: Maintain 75 % of Existing Walls Floors, and Roof (Conditionally Recommended) ..................................................................................166 MR Credit 1.2 Building Reuse: Maintain 95 % of Existing Walls Floors, and Roof (Conditionally Recommended) ..................................................................................167 MR Credit 1.3 Building Reuse: Maintain 50 % o f Interior Non-Structural elements (Conditionally Recommended) ..................................................................................167 MR Credit 2.1 Construction Waste Manage m ent: Divert 50% from Disposal (Recommended) ......................................................................................................... 167 MR Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Manage m ent: Divert 75% from Disposal (Recommended) ......................................................................................................... 167 MR Credit 3.1 Materials Reuse: 5% (Condition ally Recommended) .......................... 168 MR Credit 3.2 Materials Reuse: 10% (Conditionally Recommended) ........................ 169 MR Credit 4.1 Recycled Content: 10% ( post-consum er + pre-consumer) (Highly Recommended) .......................................................................................................... 169 MR Credit 4.2 Recycled Content: 20 % (post-consum er + pre-consumer) (Recommended) ......................................................................................................... 169 MR Credit 5.1 Regional Materials: 10 % Extracted, Processed and Manufactured Regionally (Highly Recommended) .......................................................................... 170 MR Credit 5.2 Regional Materials: 20 % Extracted, Processed and Manufactured Regionally (Recommended) ...................................................................................... 171 MR Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Mate rials (Condition ally Recommended) ................ 172 MR Credit 7 Certified Wood (Recommended) .............................................................172 Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ) ..................................................................................... 173 EQ Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery M ethod (Conditionally Recommended) ................ 173 EQ Credit 2 Increased Ventilat ion (C onditionally Recommended) .............................. 173 EQ Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Manageme nt Plan: During Construction (Highly Recommended) .......................................................................................................... 174

PAGE 9

9 EQ Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Manageme nt Plan: Before Occupancy (H ighly Recommended) .......................................................................................................... 174 EQ Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials: Adhesives and Sealants (Highly Recommended) .......................................................................................................... 175 EQ Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials: Paints and Coatings (Highly Recommended) .......................................................................................................... 175 EQ Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials: Carp et Systems (Highly Recommended) ..... 175 EQ Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials: Composite Wood (Highly Recommended) .. 176 EQ Credit 5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control (Highly Recommended) .......................................................................................................... 176 EQ Credit 6.1 Controllability of System s: Lighting (Condition ally Recommended) .. 177 EQ Credit 6.2 Controll ability of System s: Therma l (Conditionally Recommended) .. 177 EQ Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort: Design (Recommended) .......................................... 178 EQ Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort: Veri fication (Co nditionally Recommended) ........... 178 EQ Credit 8.1 Daylight and Views: Daylight 75% of Spaces (Highly Recommended) .......................................................................................................... 178 EQ Credit 8.2 Daylight and Views: Views for 90% of Spaces (Recommended) ........ 179 ID Credits 1 to 1.4 Innovation in Design (Conditionally Recommended) .................... 179 ID Credit 2: Innovation and Design LEED Accredited Professional (AP) ................... 181 Summary ....................................................................................................................... ........182 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................185 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................188

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Initial capital construction costs for IHS LEED projects ...................................................722-2 USGBC Sample cost data .................................................................................................. 722-3 LEED criteria development ...............................................................................................722-4 LEED certification levels ...................................................................................................732-5 LEED 2.2 rating system points per category ..................................................................... 732-6 LEED certified and re gistered projects ..............................................................................732-7 Business case for high performa nce green buildings summary ......................................... 742-8 Florida LEED certified projec ts location and award level ................................................. 742-9 Number of Florida LEED registered projects by owner type ............................................ 742-10 Impacts of green building by survey respondents .............................................................. 752-11 Florida university enrollment for 2004-05 ......................................................................... 752-12 Floridas post-secondary cons truction costs based on 2004 data ......................................762-13 Comparison of project costs on Florida campuses ............................................................ 772-14 Comparison of professional f ee percentage across campuses ........................................... 782-15 University of Florid a green building stock ........................................................................792-16 LEED cost values (LCV) ................................................................................................... 792-17 Associated LEED costs for No rth Boulder Recreation Center ..........................................792-18 LEED prerequisite standards .............................................................................................802-19 Construction phase commissioning costs ..........................................................................803-1 Sample existing system global performance evaluation checklist ................................... 1063-2 The pairwise comparison scale ........................................................................................ 1073-3 Sample applied construction cost pe rcentages for college student union ........................ 1084-1 LEED alternatives preference outcomes .......................................................................... 128

PAGE 11

11 4-2 Balanced LEED alternativ es (Evenly Distributed) .......................................................... 1284-3 Performance weighted LEED alternatives ....................................................................... 1284-4 Environment weighted LEED alternatives ...................................................................... 1294-5 Social weighted LEED alternatives .................................................................................1294-6 Health weighted LEED alternatives .................................................................................1305-1 UF certified and silver standard and low cost credit breakdown by costs .......................1445-2 Preference weights applied to UF standards and options ................................................ 1445-3 Low and high cost conceptual estimates .......................................................................... 1455-4 Outcome impacts by preference weights with GSF cost ranges ...................................... 145B-1 University of Florida LEED Credit Ratings ....................................................................183B-2 Bike rack and shower facilities for commercial users .....................................................183

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Research progression ...................................................................................................... ...212-1 Relationship between LEED alternatives and outcomes ...................................................682-2 Building demand for average southeast commercial building ........................................... 692-3 University of Florida LEED credit evaluation steps ..........................................................702-4 LEED first cost impacts based on building standards ....................................................... 713-1 Decision model for assessment of sustainable construction (DMASC) .......................... 1013-2 Green education conduits am ong construction participants ............................................ 1023-3 Traditional linear design approach ................................................................................... 1033-4 Sustainable integrated design approach ...........................................................................1033-5 Logical scoring of preferences method ............................................................................ 1043-6 LEED sustainable requirements and parameter (SRP) tree ............................................. 1043-7 An example hierarchy for the problem of selecting the best LEED alternatives ............. 1054-1 LEED alternatives comp osite score and ranking ............................................................. 1154-2 LEED alternatives with synergistic sums across thr ee out of four outcomes .................. 1164-3 Preference impact weights ............................................................................................... 1164-4 Initial ranked evaluations of alternatives for evenly weighted alternatives ..................... 1174-5 Initial ranked evaluations for 70% performance weighted alternatives ........................... 1184-6 Initial ranked evaluations for 70% environment weighted alternatives ........................... 1194-7 Initial ranked evaluations for 70% social weighted alternatives .....................................1204-8 Initial ranked evaluations for 70% health weighted alternatives .....................................1214-9 Project data sheet ........................................................................................................ .....1224-10 Project/LEED specific data. .............................................................................................1234-11 LEED scorecard costing .................................................................................................. 124

PAGE 13

13 4-12 Sample LEED credit cost summary/take-off ................................................................... 1254-13 Cost preference analysis ..................................................................................................1264-14 DMASC cost-preference summary sheet .........................................................................1275-1 UFs standard only LEED credit project ......................................................................... 1375-2 Lowest cost credits for UF ranke d by low-cost and weighted ranking. ........................... 1385-3 Highest cost credits for UF ranke d by low-cost and weighted ranking. ..........................1395-4 Sample medical center project data input. ....................................................................... 1405-5 Sample medical center L EED specific project data. ........................................................1415-6 Health weighted certified medical center case study. ......................................................1425-7 Sample certified medical center scorecard. ..................................................................... 143B-1 Construction waste management plan implementation ...................................................184

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DECISION MODEL FOR PUBLIC SECT OR ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS IN FLORIDA By JAMES G. SULLIVAN August 2007 Chair: Charles Kibert Major: Design, Construction, and Planning My study examines first costs and design out comes in pursuing a United States Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) certification for new comm ercial construction in the state of Florida. My study notes the two greatest drivers determining first costs are projec t specific LEED credits selected and the degree to which current building standards and practices meet those required by the USGBC. The model incorporates a Logical Scoring of Preferences (LSP) method that evaluates decision makers preferences and cost separate ly and then combines preference rankings and costs to provide a range of costs and sustainable impacts. Ea ch LEED credit is automatically conceptually estimated based on a limited number of project specific inputs. The resulting output presents certification benchmarks and cost ranges for the evaluatio n of LEED alternatives.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction While sustainable design and construction pract ices continue to grow within the United States, and specifically within the State of Florida, there is continued confusion regarding designed benefits and associated first costs of certified green construc tion. This research presents a current and applicable Decision Model for the Assessment of Sustainable Construction (DMASC) in Florida. The DMASC model incorpor ates a logical scoring system which provides a way to independently evaluate sustainable alternatives based on building performance, environment, social, and occupant health impacts and associated first costs. The model provides public entities a means for evaluating sustainabl e construction methods compared with current traditional methods based on first costs. The tool identifies key factors for successful adaptation from traditional to integrated sustainable desi gn and construction. Decisi on processes are broken into three phases 1) an initial evaluation stage, 2) a combined preference a nd cost stage, and 3) a final ranked decision stage to aid in the selec tion of sustainable alternatives. The model incorporates the United States Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) for new construc tion 2.2 point based building evaluation and certification tool. Appendix A provides a LEED scorecard list ing alternatives under category headings. Established in 1998, the USGBC LEE D certification process is the predominant sustainability criteria used in evaluating buildings throughout the United States (US). It has been adopted by the Government Service Agency (GSA), branches of the US Military, and used in several stateand university-bas ed construction programs.

PAGE 16

16 Sustainability Defined Often used interchangeably, the terms su stainable construction and sustainable development, have different connotations for diffe rent audiences. Some may even argue that the phrase sustainable constructi on is oxymoronic and that ot her phrases such as more sustainable or more environmentally friendly cons truction be used in its stead. Sustainable has been defined as ... non-declining huma n well-being over time (Pearce and Warford 1993); providing for the needs of the present generatio n without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (WCED 1987).; and the use of energy and materials in an urban area in balance with what the region can supply continuously through natural processes such as photosynthesis, biological decomposition, and th e biochemical processes which support life (Lyle 1994). In the construction realm, sustainable is ofte n used as a relative term compared to its traditional counterpart. Traditi onal construction emphasizes projec t schedules, code compliance, quality, and cost. Sustainable c onstruction includes these same elements but also emphasizes performance, resource conservation, environmenta l degradation, occupant well-being, and social benefits as important factors for consideration. Sustainability has evolved to incorporate various economic and socio-political factors such as human qua lity of life, and it is this global view that we, as a species, must move towards to build a common standard of living and education. However, the current traditional construction mindset is primarily based on maximizing limited natural resources and basic short-term economics of exploiting those natural resources. Problem Statement Currently there is no model available to eval uate project specific LEED building criteria based on local standards, key decision makers sustainable preferences and building program, cost, location, and LEED certification level. Tw o of the most cited LEED critiques are: 1)

PAGE 17

17 LEED costs too much and 2) point mongering becomes the goal of design rather than building the best sustainable building as possible given constraints (Schendler and Udall 2005). Too often in consulting sessions the process of selecting credits is based on lowest cost, not on owner preference, program fit, or cred it impact. During these sessions the relationship between project function and point impacts tends to be lost altogether as projec t teams focus on achievability of no cost credits above all other considerations. DMASC was developed in part to address this void. Purpose of the Study My research developed a decision model that allows for the evaluation of sustainable criteria for use in public buildi ngs in Florida. I provided deci sion makers with a way to assess sustainable criteria based on pref erences, outcome impacts, project applicability, and cost as to provide a more comprehensive way to make a selection. My study bui lds upon the experiences of staff at the University of Florida over the past eight years as they have gone managing their first LEED certified building, Rinker Hall in 2000, to the adoption of a minimum LEED certification for all buildings constructed on campus in 2007. Methodology The Decision Model for the Assessment of Su stainable Construction (DMASC) is a three stage model that provides a structure and means for the adoption of more sustainable practices and evaluation of USGBC LEED su stainable criteria. The model consists of the following: Phase I Analysis of current building methods a nd decision process for moving to the adoption of more sustai nable building practices. Phase II The incorporation of Logical Sc oring of Preferences (LSP) methods that evaluate objectives of decision make rs and initial costs separately. Phase III The process of rec onciling preferences and costs to determine a hierarchy of best fit criteria for a building program.

PAGE 18

18 My methodology serves to link the attributes of sustainable cons truction (i.e., building performance impacts, environmental impacts, so cial impacts, and health impacts) with owner preference in a systematic way. Critiques of the LEED system refer to point shopping and seeking the cheapest points rega rdless of building program or owner preference for impact (Schendler and Udall 2005). My methodology addresses this concern. Research Objectives and Limitations The primary purpose of this research is to provide a structure to assess the impacts and costs of sustainable construction techniques for use in Florida-based public projects. The objective is to develop a research assessment tool that allows decision makers to evaluate the potential success of adopting sustainable standard s and guidelines. The end-user focus is the public sector (i.e., local muni cipalities, county government s, and public universities). Objective 1 Provide an overview of current trends, perceptions, and cost studies associated with LEED design in the United States. Objective 2 Examine history and current practices of the Facilities and Planning Department (FPD) at the University of Florida (UF) to identify benchmarks for sustainable design. The DMASC assessment logic builds upon the FPD processes th at have been developed between years 2000 and 2007. Included in these processes are en ergy modeling, commissi oning, and construction costs, as well as architect and engineering (A a nd E) costs and fees associated with sustainable design.

PAGE 19

19 Objective 3 Base the DMASC on a Logical Scoring of Prefer ences (LSP) model that initially evaluates preference and cost criteria sepa rately, and subsequently uses both criteria in the final ranking and eventual sustainable crit eria selection process. Objective 4 Use Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) techniques in the evaluation of LEED alternatives during the preferen ce analysis phase of the LSP m odel. Alternatives will be evaluated based on environment, building performa nce, occupant health, and social impacts. These scores determine the DM ASC model preference rankings. Objective 5 Provide recommendations for future resear ch and applicableness of the model for stakeholders outside the Florida public sector. Limitation 1 The model is based for use in a public setting where decision makers have direct input as to the development and adoption of building standards. Limitation 2 This model does not seek to derive an optimal solution. Rather it is an assessment and decision tool that allows for decision makers to weigh alternatives at the conceptual phase of a project. The preference scoring systems provides ranking data re lative to alternatives and as such is a unit-less measure. Limitation 3 Estimates of cost are for sample solutions to meet LEED credit requirements and are in no way meant to be the only solution or method to achieve a credit. In addi tion the relative wide range in lowand high-estimates, plus or minus 25 percent, are intended to account for time

PAGE 20

20 factors (i.e., inflation, interest rates) and regional material, labo r, and cost variety within the state. Detailed estimates for each credit should be completed by the build team during the program phase of construction. A key design f eature of the model was to base conceptual estimates on information that would be av ailable at the programming stage of design. Limitation 4 The model is not designed to formulate a best solution. The strength of the DMASC model is that it allows for users to adjust rankings, impacts, and costs as it relates to their specific project. Its purpose is to provide a logical structure and system th at adds value to the sustainable design process. Limitation 5 Part of my study is to determine costs base d on differences between traditional methods and sustainable methods. As such the cost estim ates reflect the conceptu al additional costs and should not be used to base cont ract values for achieving credits. Limitation 6 My study looks at first costs and does not address payback, return-on-investment, or possible cost lowering scenarios in anyway. Fo r example it does not assume that there is a payback for sorting construction debr is and how this debris value, such as metal, may offset the cost of separating waste. This is up to the project team to eval uate the strategy. The model does allow for a credit identifier as Standard or no-c ost to identify credits that the team determines are no-cost without having to justif y these costs with an estimate. The individual research objectiv es provide the framework for this project. This chapter provides the rationale and reasons for developing a sustainable construction evaluation model. Figure 1-1 summarizes th e research progression.

PAGE 21

21 Figure 1-1. Research progression Problem Statement and Literature Review Review of UF Data /GSA Study LSP model evaluated LSP based Decision Model for Assessment of Sustainable Construction Preference and Cost Paths developed with Model Constraints Assessment Tool Preference Scenarios Conclusions and Recommendations

PAGE 22

22 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The kind of environment we live inand will leave to our childrendepends on the kind of society we create within our communities. The social infrastructure fundamental to a healthy environment in this human-dominat ed world includes not only good laws and public institutions; a th riving, rational economy; and a respon sive political system but also shared information, knowledge, goals and values ; active civic organizations; and, crucially mutual tolerance and regard among the citi zens of a community and concern for one anothers well being. Shabecoff The nexus for the Decision Model for the Assessment of Sustainable Construction (DMASC) was a request to succinctly present the tie between sustainable construction impacts or benefits with associated first costs to a lo cal Florida county commissions budget hearing. The commissioners wanted a path expl ained to them that led from their traditional methods to ones that were more sustainable. Along with this pa th they wanted to know the exact costs of each step. After costs were determined they wanted to know specific benefits of having a certified green building. Their interest was in pursuing a LEED certification. This was a difficult request. There was no reference to a systematic way of e xplaining the impacts of credit categories or how decision makers come to grips with first costs and LEED certificati on levels other than answering the question with a statem ent similar to it depends. Due to the nature of the LEED scoring syst em, that is after the completing a set of prerequisites, the credits select ed are up to the owner and project team. It was difficult to guarantee performance outcomes solely based on certification levels. In order to address the concerns regarding first costs and performance impacts a model was needed to explain how an entity, be it private owner or public institution, tran sitions from current tr aditional methods to more sustainable ones. Informa tion regarding integrated sustaina ble design benefits and costs is

PAGE 23

23 widespread across several countries states, and cities, but little or no information is available in print regarding efforts made in the state of Florida. The basic tenets of sustainabl e construction are straightforw ard and stress the importance of human health, energy and water conservation, site planning, and ma terial selection in order to provide a measurable benefit to the inhabitants of the build ing, the environment, and the community, but how these tenets drive design and cost decisions is less discernable. Although decision makers are willing to embrace the tenets of sustainability they are not willing to fund them blindly. There was need to develop a decision model. Over the past decade several states, notably California, Minnesota, and Massachusetts, have enlisted the aid of Greg Kats and his sta ff at Capital E Analysis, to provide detailed cost reports regarding the economic benefits of gr een design for school systems (Kats 2003). This data emphasizes the return-on-i nvestment (ROI) of sustainable energy savings and increased gains in staff productivity by providing a healthy c ontrollable indoor environment. At the same time the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) has developed a powerful tool, the Leadership in Engineering and Environmen tal Design (LEED) Rating System, which has become the benchmark for evaluating the greenness of commercial projects. The LEED tool is a thirdparty verification system for which desi gners and contractors supp ly project information to be verified by the USGBC. The USGBC then rates a project on a scal e of certified, silver, gold, or platinum, based on material submitted and on total points awarded. With the success of the LEED program, along with strong political and administrative support, 18 states have adopted, mandated, or reviewed as pects of LEED for large state pr ojects. All br anches of the armed services incorporate sustainable planks in their building program guidelines, as well as the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). In th e state of Florida, the C ity of Gainesville, the

PAGE 24

24 University of Florida, and Sarasota County have adopted green standards for large projects. This chapter provides an overview of LEED cost studi es and how the impacts of green construction are perceived. The USGBC website provides an updated comprehensive overview of LEED based resolutions and initiatives established for branches of government states, cities, public institutions, and colleges throughout the United States. Defining Green To first form an opinion of sustainable prac tices, a working definition is in order. In academic, social, political and ecological circles, sustainable development is often defined by a quote from a UN-sponsored commission (UN 1993) : those paths of social economic and political progress that meet the needs of the present without comp romising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. From a design, planning, and construction view, the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive de fines green building as "the practice of 1) increasing the efficiency with which buildings and their sites use energy, water, and materials, and 2) reducing building impacts on human health and the environment, through site selection, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and rem oval--the complete building life cycle." Typically, the first question asked by decision makers is what types of buildings are currently being delivered? De signers and contractors follow the design program requirements requested by owners and confor m to existing code regulations. To review what is being delivered, one must review current program requirements. Most traditional building programs require the project to meet building code and to provide a specified square footage of space for each user or activity. Sustainable programs inco rporate traditional requirements but expand the role of designers and contractors to include additional considerations such as erosion and sedimentation control, indoor air quality, and levels of building performance.

PAGE 25

25 Designing Green A building does not need to register with a third party verification system to be more sustainable. In fact, there are a number of hindr ances with regard to subscribing to a LEED-type program, most notably the costs associated with tracking and submitting documentation for verification. Similar to any type of auditing prac tice, the only way to achieve LEED credits is to provide the necessary pape r trail to support ones claims. For the most part, this cost impact may be reduced with experience. Proj ect Managers on staff at the Univ ersity of Florida, for example, state a LEED certified building can currently be delivered on campus at no additional expense. This claim is rooted in the following: Experience with over sixteen regist ered LEED projects on campus. Current level of construction standards. Recent market transformation toward s lower green material costs. Requiring both designer and contractor prev ious experience on a minimum of two LEED projects. Processing LEED submittals by UF project staff. This model verifies this claim. LEED emphasizes five key elements in design: 1) sustainable sites, 2) water efficiency, 3) energy and atmosphere, 4) material and resources, and 5) indoor environmental quality. By stressing these categories and providing guidelines to meet ke y requirements, the USGBC has allowed for common dialogue among owners, arch itects, engineers, contractors and building users. This collaborative dialogue provides unique opportuni ties for communication that may not typically occur in a trad itional construction setting. Th e DMASC model re-shuffles the LEED alternative intents into four outcome categories. Figure 2-1 illustrates the relationship between LEED sustainable categories and DMASC sustainable outcomes.

PAGE 26

26 Costing Green Three main costing studies have been produced over the past five years, one a prescriptive estimating study examining the General Service Administrations (GSA) design program (GSA 2004), another prescriptive study examining cost impacts to the existing Indian Health Service (IHS) building program(IHS 2006), and one post-bui lt study of actual design and construction costs for projects built throughout the US (Mo rris 2004). The GSA study shows a progression of cost increases through the LEED system from cert ified to platinum. Essentially, the GSA will increase project funding by 2.5% to cover LEED certification costs. Th e caveat to this number is that GSA was already performing tasks associated with significant costs in their base program. Items such as commissioning and meeting ASHR AE guidelines were included in their base building. The second study is a 2006 repor t put together by a team from Seattle that was commissioned by the Division of Engineering Se rvices (DES). The DES is responsible for overseeing all new healthcare faciliti es for the IHS. This study examined the cost impact of each applicable LEED credit based to existing IHS pr ogram standards. The study also demonstrated Life-Cycle Costs (LCC) for each credit. Additiona lly, it compared its findings with that of the GSA report. This gives insight to how the LEED process impacts two di fferent building types developed under two different building programs. Table 2-1 illustrates the cost impacts based on the existing $197 per square foot construction cost and 84,895 Gross Square Foot (GSF) IHS building program. Estimated budg et for the IHS project is $16,753,370. The third study often cited includes a report produced by th e Davis Langdon firm, a design firm that provides comprehensive cost planning and sustainable design ma nagement services to architects and owners (Langdon 2004). In this study the company reviewed its proprietary cost database to compare green versus non-green buildings on the basis of cost. The USGBCs

PAGE 27

27 LEED Rating System was also used as a basis for determining the level of sustainability a project achieved. Individual credits were not assesse d. Forty-five library, laboratory, and academic classroom projects designed with some level of LEED certification were selected for comparison with 93 non-LEED projects of the same types. All costs were normalized for location and time of construction. Given the common perception that LEED proj ects cost more than non-LEED projects, the analysis was striking. The results showed no st atistically significant difference between LEED and non-LEED projects. The LEED projects were dispersed through the range of all projects based on cost. It is important to note that the standard deviation of building square footage costs was high, based on the different types of buildings and different square footages of the sample buildings. In addition the study focused on projects in states that had relative high performance existing standards such as Calif ornia, Oregon, and Washington. Davis Langdon also reviewed the non-LEED pr ojects to determine what, if any, LEED certifications would be achieved. Ten random non-LEED projects were selected from the original list of 93. The ten buildings scored between 15 and 29 points based on the LEED scorecard. The project that scored an estimated 29 points would have surpassed the necessary 26 points needed to achieve LEED certification. Ov erall, the study indica ted that typically, 12 LEED points can be earned without altering design, based on location of building and local code requirements. Furthermore, up to 18 additional LEED points may be accomplished with minimum design effort at little or no additional cost What is not noted in this study are the fee structure and schedule for the project de signers, engineers, and contractors. A common way to determine the cost of green is to compare the projects final budget with the initial budget. This tends to include all cost overages, no t only those associated with LEED

PAGE 28

28 points. Over half of the projects studied had no additional costs allotted for LEED and came in within budget. The remaining projects had additional monies set aside for items such as photovoltaic systems and other special enhancem ents. These projects additional green supplements ranged between 0.0 and 3.0 percent of the initial budget. The most successful projects identified LEED goals fr om the onset and maximized inte grated design opportunities. Bidding climate was also a key element in determin ing the final cost of a building. Contractors unfamiliar with LEED, or any new constraint sy stem or regulation, will include additional monies to cover their unknown ri sks associated with learning a new system. In areas new to LEED two main trends occur: 1) bidders add co ntingency for the unknown, and 2) the number of bidders is reduced, thus reducing the competitive nature of bidding against multiple players. Davis Langdon suggests the following to achieve LEED within budget constraints: Understand feasibility and costs for each point on a project. Sustainability is a design/program issue, not an added requirement. Establish team goals and responsibilities. Align budget with program. Morris and colleagues concluded It is the choices made during the design which will ultimately determine whether a building can be sustainable, not the budget set. The USGBC does not provide detailed cost data for credits as part of its service to its members, and cost data that is provided is cr yptic and does not provide any dollar ranges for LEED alternatives or credit options. Table 2-2 illustrates a sample of the cost data for Sustainable Site Credits (SSCred it) and Sustainable Site Prerequi site (SSPrereq) provided by the USGBC. No associated dollar values are give n for the various symbols used in Table 2-2. UFs First Green Project Rinker Hall After reviewing costs for Rinker Hall, UFs first LEED building, it is estimated that an additional 10% of the buildings base budge t was spent on achieving a LEED-NC 2.1 Gold

PAGE 29

29 certification (REF for the estimate). This has resulted in energy savings of approximately 30% per year and water savings of over 75% per year The payback period is less than seven years, after which the university will benefit from the reduced operation cost. User estimates for increase construction costs associated with th is project hover around 10% My study confirms this cost at the time of construction. This pe rcentage would have been less if Rinker Hall was built today due the lessons learned and program requirements noted previously. Sustainable Construction As an industry in the United States, cons truction represents si gnificant consumer use (40%) of raw materials while gi ving back a significant amount (33%) of total landfill waste (Kibert 2002). It is th is relationship of consuming vast amounts of raw materials and production of large volumes of waste that causes leaders in the construction industry to look for systems that may limit the environmental impacts. Kibert l ooks to natural systems and ecology as a basis to understand the harm caused and for methods to mitigate this harm by potentially mimicking the natural world Industrial ecology is given as an example of systembased thinking used to close the consumption-to-waste loop. Similar areas of interest include industrial metabolism, ecoefficiency, and design for the environment (DFE ). These like fields suggest moving from a linear consumption/waste module to a cyclical natural model that limits waste and leads to a continuous process rather than a s implified dead end (i.e., land fill). Forward thinking construction models look no t only to close consumption/waste loops through building designs but to also examine bu ildings continued use and long-term effects on the inhabitants and surroundings. While buildings may represent de signers ability to control and dominate their surroundings, each structure is also part of a lacuna of natural systems within the design community. Thus, while human abilities are impressive the lack of understanding of the systems that surround and interact with a st ructure limits its potential for efficiency and

PAGE 30

30 harmony with its environment. Current industry pr actices have various degenerative effects such as soil erosion, biodiversity degradation, and wa ter pollution and waste. Odums work is mentioned as a link between embodied energy and relative input of system components to the operational whole (Odum 2001; Kibert 2002). The intr iguing aspect of this is the use of the hierarchal structure to better understand the selection and use of building components. The DMASC structure also includes a hierarch al element in the decision process. According to Steele (Steele 1997), the first use of the term sustainability in reference to human impact on environment was in a 1980 Internat ional Union for the Conservation of Nature (UCN) publication entitled World Conservation Strategy. This work focused on the debate between pro-growth and anti-growth sentiments as to which course would ultimately best serve humankind and the planet. Althoug h this report did not lead to any large change in public policy, it did influence two other more signif icant reports: the Brandt Commission Report and the Brundtland Commission Report (Steele 1997). The Brandt Commission was initiated when the World Bank appointed Willy Brandt, Chair of the Social Democratic Party of the Fe deral Republic of Germany, to head a 20-member commission from non-industrial countries to study the relationships among resource degradation, waste, and international financ ing. The Commission initially au thored a report titled NorthSouth: A Program for Survival in 1980. Th e report promoted changes in the operational procedures and policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In hindsight, the commission findings have been questioned due to turmoil caused by third-world countries faulting on loans; however, the commission work was valuable, bringing to the forefront the need to recognize global negotiations and the impacts that in dustries in one country have on the entire planet.

PAGE 31

31 Following the Brand Commission, the next univers ally lauded report on sustainability is the Brundtland Report., an outcome of th e 1987 United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development that focused on th e compromise between growth and non-growth factions. Heading this comm ittee was Norwegian Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, who helped produce Our Common Future, a seminal re port that defined sustai nability in terms of growth and future environmental impacts or those paths of social economic and political progress that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This defi nition is supported by the land, material resource, and energy efficiencies of the green design movement. The USGBC started to develop LEED desi gn criteria between 1994 and 1995 in response to market-driven demand for a definition of e nvironmentally friendly or green design and product initiatives. LEED categories and supporti ng alternatives were developed by a host of designers, architects, engineers, and envir onmentalists focused on improving environmental impacts, health of building occupants, and econo mic benefits of the building environment. The LEED criteria have evolved since their conception in 1994 as noted in Table 2-3. Currently the USGBC reports 986 million square feet of regist ered and certified comme rcial space within the United States (USGBC 2007). The first LEED criteria developed in 1994/1995 included a simple pass or fail system in which a project meeting minimum requirements w ould be certified. This was followed by the LEED 1.0 Program in 1998, in which different levels of achievement would be recognized. In 2000, and with minor re-submittal requirements in 2004 and 2005, the LEED 2.1 and 2.2 Programs were issued that support the poi nts program currently in effect.

PAGE 32

32 The Green building movement incorporates several aspects of social design (Gifford 2002) in that it looks to provide a healthier envi ronment for its users via collaboratively agreedupon design criteria. The USGBC has expanded from LEED for new construction to include a number of different applicable design and constr uction criteria. The following lists the various LEED rating programs in place or under development (USGBC 2007): New Commercial Construction a nd Major Renovation projects Existing Building Operations and Maintenance Commercial Interiors projects Core and Shell Development projects Homes Neighborhood Development Guidelines for Multiple Buildings and On-Campus Building Projects. As discussed above, this criterion has gone through 3 major revisions since 1993 with the latest version titled LEED Rating System 2.2 (USGBC 2007). Building evaluation and accreditation is based on a prerequisite and point system. The more points or credits achieved out of the total of 69 available points, the higher the buildings ra tings. Table 2-4 provides a list of certification levels and associ ated number of minimum credits or points needed. As noted in Chapter 1, Appendix A provides a complete LEED-NC 2.2 Scorecard. Points may be accrued in various combinations of design strategies, but prerequisites must be achie ved or the building will not receive any form of accred itation from the USGBC. The main six (6) categories have remained consistent over time (updates have only been in terms of defining i ndividual credits). The six (6) categories consist of five (5) environmental headings and one (1) design process general heading. The five environm ental categories are Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Indoor Environmental Quality, and Materials and Resources. The additional desi gn category is titled Innovation a nd Design. Each category is designated with several sub-cate gories or credits, which is as signed a total maximum number of

PAGE 33

33 points. Points and prerequisites vary among cat egories. See Table 2-5 for listing of points available per LEED category. Within each category there are alternatives tied to certain design or performance criteria. For example, under Water Efficiency, Credit 1.1 has two measures worth one (1) point each. The first part of this credit stat es that high efficiency irrigation technology or use of captured rain water be incorporated in the design to reduce landscaping consumption by 50% over conventional means. The second part of this cred it states that if no potable water is used for landscaping, an extra point will be awarded. Thus xeroscaping with no water usage will result in two (2) points towards the projects point total. Table 2-6 summarizes LEED certified and re gistered projects by LEED certification program (USGBC 2007). LEED registered projects ar e those projects which have paid fees to register with the USGBC but have not made it through the evaluation stage and have not been awarded their final certification level. Driving Forces Why are those functioning as owners of construction projects choosing to pursue LEED certified projects? Current green designers question why owners would choose to design any other way. Why would anyone choose to build in a way that isnt comfortable, healthy, and energy efficient? (Wilson 2005). Is choice dict ated by expectations less comprehensive than those who choose to pursue green buildings? Ar e not all owners making assumptions regarding comfort, health, and energy efficiency? Current re search does not address the driving forces that have caused the increase in intere st in high performance buildings. For those who support high performance buildin gs, the short and long term rewards, both for the environment and those who will work in the constructed space, are obvious. However, owners may also be driven by factors other than environmental or employee health concerns.

PAGE 34

34 Federal or state funded projects may be dictated to pursue high performa nce buildings. Build-toown developers may be driven by lower operatio n costs and greater lease rates. Corporate buildings or factories are perhaps driven by greater productivity and increased employee retention. The following summarize pe rceived benefits of green design. Business Case for Green In 2000, the Environment and Public Works Committee of the U.S. Senate convened a special meeting to bring members of congress, industry, and the U.S. Green Building Council together to help enlighten those on the hill regarding sustainable construction. The group produced a report titled Making the Business Case for High Performance Green Buildings (USGBC 2000). The meeting helped educate those w ith an interest in green building and allowed discussion about the benefits of core principles of the deli very method. Table 2-7 lists a summary of the committees findings: The report included key case studies for each of the points noted in the summary. Regarding first costs, the comparison is often made as to which is more expensivean efficient car or an inefficient carthe result depending on options, featur es, and preferences of the car and the buyer. Construction and design first cost of Johnson Controls LEED-certified office in Milwaukee was quoted at 10 to 15% less th an similar buildings (USGBC 2000). Although tenants may not directly benefit from the energy savings of sustainable design, (this depends on how their energy consumption is tied to their lease rate), they will benefit from churn cost reductions from the use of open floor plans and raised floors. Herman Millers MarketPlace building reports a 66% reduction in churn-related costs. The business case presented in 2000 bolstered support for pursing in tegrated sustainable design by illustrating the real world value and cost savings earned by leaders in the property management and production fields.

PAGE 35

35 First-Cost Benefits Some city governments have streamlined permitting and approvals (time savings) and lessened fees (cost savings) for high performance projects. In cities with large construction volume, such as Chicago, this time savings may be considerable. Project teams may see benefits and cost syne rgies throughout the desi gn process. Use of high efficiency water fixtures may reduce the size and cost of sewage lines throughout the project. These savings may be used to finance ot her features in the project or simply lower the projects overall cost. In addition, there are freq uent savings derived from design decisions that create additional savings in other systems. Fo r example, changing to a more efficient thermal glass exterior may lead to a reduction in heati ng/cooling loads, which, in turn, may reduce duct lines/size as well as reduce the total size of the conditioning units. Day lighting and open floor plans may allow for a reduction of materials, and a ssociated costs, for a project. A reduction in non-structural dividing walls would save in materi al, labor and time as compared to a traditional divided space. The DMASC model allows for these tradeoffs to be entered on a credit by credit basis but does not automatically capture these tradeoffs in terms of cost. A more environmentally sensitive constructi on plan may reduce waste processing costs. During the construction of Rinker Ha ll at the University of Florid a, project managers separated drywall, metal, and general waste. Waste gypsum was recovered by the drywall supplier at additional cost; however, the recycled metals were recovered at no cost by a local metal recycler. Several state and local governments are offeri ng tax credits and other financial incentives to green developers. States such as New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Oregon are offering financial incentives to build high pe rformance structures (Wilson 2005).

PAGE 36

36 Building Performance Benefits Energy and Atmosphere credits account for th e largest percentage, 24.6 percent, of the USGBC category credits. Savings from energy design strategies are ofte n viewed as having the single most cost-to-benefit ratio as other green st rategies. Increased fuel and energy costs will continue to push the envelope of energy saving design. The goal of sustainable design is to reduce the amount of energy used to effectively operate a building. Energy optimi zation credits account for the largest per centage of points available for one credit under LEED-NC 2.2. Lowering water usage is also a mainstay of green design. Water effi ciency credits account for five out of sixty-nine, or 7.4%, possibl e LEED credits. The USGBC reports commercial buildings use 12.2% of all potable water, or 15 trillion gallons a year during operation(USGBC 2007). Rinker Hall at the University of Florida incorporates rain water capture cistern to supply non-potable plumbing fixtures within the building. In addition the University of Florida has a greywater supply system running through cam pus to support irrigation services. Facility managers and owners are concerne d with renovation costs associated with changing tenets needs. Design features such as an elevated floor reduce the costs associated with tenant layout changes. The National Re newable Energy Lab, a 20-thousand square foot laboratory estimates a $35,000 a year savings as a result of usi ng a raised floor system with regard to annual office design and layout ch anges(Torcellini, Pl ess et al. 2006). Depending on the credits pursued, LEED-designe d buildings have an energy savings of 14 to 50% less than conventional build ings. International developer Hi nes, Inc., is quoted regarding energy star buildings, Efficienci es gained from its Energy St ar buildings are generating $13 million in annual savings, based on 2000 evaluation (Council 2000). The energy savings numbers will increase relative to increased energy costs and demands. An EPA report from 2002

PAGE 37

37 predicts that an Energy Star labeled office building generates a 40% savings over the average code-built office buildings. Energy Star is a joint program between the United States Department of Energy and the United States En vironmental Protection Agency that identifies energy efficient designs and practices. Although these savings are significant, integrated sustainable design incorporati ng LEED-type models focus on the building and process as a whole. This is the key difference and advantag e of sustainable programs from those similar to Energy Star. Health and Productivity Benefits The USGBC reports that the average Ameri can spends between 80 and 90% of the day indoors. Addressing concerns of indoor environmental quality helps to ensure a healthy and productive society both in the long and short term. Companies are seeking to improve their competitive edge in terms of employee recruitment and retention. Similar to leasing an d tenant issues, marke ting the space that an employee will occupy as a healthier (i.e., better indoor air quality and natural lighting) provides support for attracting and keeping employees. Wilson (Wilson 2005) reports that an accounting firm, Deloitte and Touche, estimates the cost of recruiting a non-profe ssional worker to be approximately $12,000 and a professional worker to be $35,000. He also notes that the Families and Work Institute estimates costs associated wi th replacing non-managerial staff averages about 75% of the new employees annual salary, while managerial cost s are twice that at roughly 150% of an employees annually salary. Legal issues regarding mold a nd sick building syndrome have increased in recent years. Green building design strives to reduce these concerns by a ddressing dust, moisture, and envelope construction throughout the building process. Liability insurance for such instances is also becoming more expensive.

PAGE 38

38 The ability to control light and temperature for an individual work area, as well as having a view of outdoors, enhances employee attitude and improve employee performance. It may even result in higher employee morale, reduced absenteeism, and better productivity. Costs related to employee salary and productivity far exceeds those of building construction, climate control, and energy control. The goal fo r all employers is to maximize productivity of workers while reducing the co sts of housing them. Wilson (Wilson 2005) notes that costs associated with the average U.S. office building break down as $318 per square foot for the building space, $50 per square foot fo r technology, $16 per square foot for mortgage, $2.35 per square foot for energy, and $1.00 per square foot for churn or te nant renovation. He also points out that a one percent increase in pr oductivity would more than cover the costs of energy for a building. This offset for costs is wh at drives many corporate owners to pursue high performance designs. Sustainable Development Intern ational cites several success stories regarding productivity and green design. One example is the Lockheed-Martin $50-million engineering facility, built with extensive day lighting and energy efficient sy stems. The result of the design showed a 15 percent increase in productivity with a paralleled 15 percent reduction in absenteeism. Additionally, the plant saved over $300,000 annually in energy savings. The reduction in absenteeism alone more than covered the $2,000,000 additional price tag for costs associated with the high performance design. School systems are looking to high performan ce design to add day lighting to improve learning. In a report submitted to the Pacifi c Gas and Electric Company, the Heschong Mahone Group (Heschong Malone Group 1999) reported a pos itive correlation between day lighting and students test performance. Day lighting is typi cally referred to as the amount of natural task

PAGE 39

39 lighting available in a given space. In the Capist rano School District, studen ts with the most day lighting advanced 20% faster on math tests and 26 % faster on reading tests compared to those students with the least day lighting. Increased productivity is ofte n cited as a key benefit of sustainable design although elements of productivity are difficult to tie directly to particular elements of design. Productivity gains may also derive from reduced absenteeism. The final form of a building is Gestalt-like in nature, in that the sum of the building as a whol e is more than the sum of its aspects and the interactions of its users. Th ere are a few case studies that support the notion of increased productivity. Lockheed Martins design progr am for Building 157 in Sunnydale, California, included substantial natural light ing and a 50% energy savings comp ared to Californias rigorous energy code. The EPA sites a 15% decrease in employee absenteeism at the 600,000 square foot plant that employs over 2,500 workers. This drop in absenteeism produced savings that recovered associated first costs of increased day lighting and other design features within the first year of operation. William Fisks Lawren ce Berkley National Laboratory report on indoor environments and energy efficien cy reflects that although there is uncertainty with proving direct linkages, the potential increases in productivity in the United States results in staggering figures. For the United States, the estimated potential annual savings and productivity gains are $6 to $14 billion from reduced respirator y disease, $1 to $4 billion from reduced allergies and asthma, $10 to $30 billion from reduced sick building sy ndrome symptoms, and $20 to $160 billion from direct improvements in worker performance that are unrelated to health (Fisk 2000). Reduction of sick building syndrome also le ssons the potential liability of the owner, property management team, architect, and builder. Sustainable design may lesson the possibility of claims for health-

PAGE 40

40 related problems stemming from a poorly functi oning building. These costs are rarely factored when considering upfront construction dollars. Environmental Benefits Environmental benefits associated with gr een design include: resource conservation, waste diversion, material selection, and site selection and manage ment. High performance design stresses reduction in water and electrical needs. These reductions result in less stress imposed upon municipal supplies and less waste generated compared to standard construction. These reductions help to lessen the need for greater in frastructure that supports the buildings and the energy and chemicals used to process waste. Reduction of stormwater runoff and erosion are also key benefits of high performance design. Te chniques such as porous pavement, green roofs, green swales, and natural vegetative wetlands he lp to reduce the amount of stormwater and particles introduced to a munici pal waste water system. Reduc tion of stormwater runoff also helps to reduce the amount of infrastructure us ed to transfer and process the water. An essential aspect of green design is th e reduction of the amount of urban sprawl associated with current trends in U.S. cities development. Use of land within a developed area and incorporation of existing mass transit help to reduce the costs tied to sprawl. Sprawl costs include expansion of municipal se rvices, road construction, and de vastation of undeveloped land. Emphasis is also placed on incor porating alternative fuel vehicles and bicycles as part of addressing the transportation needs of the tenants. Urban redevelopment serves to protect undeve loped land, preserve natural resources, and provide a sense of community to the existing, a nd perhaps decaying, urban core. New Urbanism is a movement that stresses the revitalization of and return to city centers after years of suburban sprawl.

PAGE 41

41 Environmental benefits of high performance desi gn are often cited as those things that sum the collective good for the planet. The collect ive good includes reductions in carbon production, greenhouse gases, increased energy producti on, and negative impacts on natural and undeveloped lands. The goals of these designs are to lessen damage to the ozone layer and lessen mans potential to accelerate danger ous changes to the global climate. Social Benefits Social responsibility or stewardship defi nitions vary among countries, cultures and communities. For this report portions of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Strategic Advisory Group on Social Resp onsibility (SAG) derived common definition will apply (IISD 2004). SAG found that the common elem ents or threads running through definitions for social responsibilities incl ude a balanced approach for or ganizations to address economic, social, and environmental issues in a way that ai ms to benefit people, community, and society. Social impacts for this report apply to short-te rm benefits that impact the immediate local community for which a LEED building is located. Short-term benefits in clude local jobs during the construction process, comm unity improvements, increase in neighborhood perceived value, and access via public transit for local workers to access new LEED facilities. Examples of longterm benefits of the community might be redu ced energy loads of build ings delay the cost associated with new power plants or how reduced waste streams ma y negate the costs associated with the construction of new land fills. Furthermore, social impacts of LEED credits bear in the mind the influence the built environment plays in the social well being of i ndividuals and communities. This influence may be in terms of aesthetic benef its, accessibility, job creation, or municipal infrastructure cost savings that may be passed on to the community at large. The concept of social equity plays a large roll within the larger socio-economic view s and planks of sustai nability. As mentioned

PAGE 42

42 previously the term sustainable is often linke d to social imbalance and global equality among societies. Three credits have dir ect ties to social imp acts. Site selection, with its requirements for density or community connectivity, support so cial networks and access to infrastructure within a community. Alternative transportation credits support ac cess to jobs for those without means to getting to and from work efficiently. Local and regional materi al credits support local businesses that produce goods us ed in the construction. In addition to the three credits that directly ti e to social benefits, there are social benefits that are not directly tied to the USGC intent or credit requirements. For example Sustainable Sites Credit 1 Site Selection main intent was to preserve green space and promote the use of infill sites. While this is predominantly an environmental credit the use of infill and protection of green space has a positive social aspect to the individuals that come in contact with the building site and preserved site. LEED points are available for in corporating local materials in the construction of the building. The goal of these points is to re duce the effects of shipping and transporting construction elements from great distances. Reducing shipping costs, as well as supporting the local economy, help save transpor tation fuel, wear on tires, and pollution by shipping vehicles. Increased property value and increases in th e initial project budge t may result if green strategies are incorporated in a project s design. Wilson (Wilson 2005) observed that increasing the Net Operating Income (NOI) of a building increases the buildings appraised value by ten times the annual cost savings a cap italization rate (CR) of 10%. For example, a 75,000 sf (7,000 m2) office building that saves $0 .50 sf (5/m2) per year in operating costs ($37,500 per year) will see the vale of the bu ilding increase by $375,000. A higher building value (appraisal) can increase the loan amount available from lendi ng institutions.

PAGE 43

43 Tenant retention and initial tenant lease ra tes are concerns for all owners/developers. Wilson notes that developer Joe Bellgehem, Buil dGreen Developments, successfully marketed green aspects of his Vancouver Island Technolog y Park during a time of slow growth for the technology sector. Arguments for green design and technologies are easily supported, but unless consumers support developers efforts, positive in roads to the marketplace may not occur. Increased positive publicity for cities, compan ies, builders, and developers is also a positive by product of building green. National and local positive coverage promotes high performance design and provides free exposure that may help developers with leasing and companies with corporate image and sales. Barriers to Sustainable Design A paper produced in the Netherlands addre sses the central question for expansion of sustainable practices, including widespread reluct ance to accept green desi gn: To what extent do institutions in the building a nd real estate sector form a barrier to the application of sustainable construction measures that result in a breakthrough? (van Bueren and Priemus 2002). Discussions as to why su stainable construction practices have been slow to take hold resulted in two conclusions: 1) in stitutional barriers have limiting effects, and 2) technical know how was not a limitation for sustainable uptake. The impact of construction on the environmen t in the Netherlands mirrors that of the impact in the US. Construction and design affect the use of space, consumption of materials, and depositing of waste. Policymaking focuses on tw o basic types of models. Financial models focus on incentives and communicative models fo cus on policy and guidelines. Institutional barriers include a vast spectrum of the constructi on process, from legal regulations to patterns, habits or traditions of building practices

PAGE 44

44 Policy developments in the Netherlands, simila r to those in the US are substantial and varied; however, the breakthrough of sustainable construction as common practice has yet to take place. The primary focus for lack of interest in sustainable practice is placed on the decision makers in the real estate sector. The phasing at this point is base d on the physical design requirements, legal requirements for zoning, acquisition of land and permits, and building program requirements. The authors note the actors in this stage, and almost every stage, act according to their own set of rules and traditions in a very fragmented process. This can be seen in the US as well, where much of sustaina ble construction has been mandated or pushed upon builders by actors functioning as financiers or owne rs of the project. There tends to be little backward or forward feedback during the phase s of construction. These are missed opportunities to move toward more sustainable practices. Several gaps in the construction process are noted as hindrances to sustainable construction. These gaps are between the fo llowing entities: 1) location development and building project development, 2) construction an d management, 3) construction and use, and 4) asymmetric distribution of pluses and minuses (i.e., energy cost sa vings of user versus upfront cost to the developer). Regarding the 4th gap, van Bueren and Priemus summarized this financial chasm as follows, The developer become s strongly fixated on the investment decisions related to the development costs of a building and much less on the management and user costs (van Bueren and Priemus 2002). Local Adoption of LEED Programs Several cities, counties, states, and ins titutions have adopted LEED-based programs throughout the US. Nineteen out of 50 (38%) states in the U.S. have some form of sustainable benchmarks in their construction guidelines.

PAGE 45

45 Gainesville and Sarasota The two cities in Florida that have adopted local incentives for green buildings are Gainesville and Sarasota. Both plans are simila r in that the incentive includes a reduction in permit fees and an expedited tag placed on their plan review. Sa rasota extends their incentive to include a limit any one builder ma y receive from permit reductions. The city of Gainesvilles gr een incentive plan includes fast-track permitting, reduced permitting fee (50%) and final project designation by the City. The city of Sarasotas incentive plan includes fast-track permitting for building pe rmits, reduced building permit fees, totaling 50 percent reduction up to a maximum of $1,000, a nd up to a maximum of $5,000 per person or entity and the county has set aside a maximum of $50,000 per year to co ver the building permit fee refunds. As of March 2006 there were eight certified pr ojects in the state of Florida. Table 2-8 designates project and location of these buildings. In addition, th ere were 63 projects registered in the state of Florida. Table 2-9 lists these projects by owner type to illustrate the decision makers involved. As of March 2006, Gainesville accounts for elev en registered buildings while Sarasota accounts for one. As of spring, 2007 the Univers ity of Florida has a mix of 16 certified and registered projects on campus. Market Trends The green building movement has seen a steady increase in market share of U.S. nonresidential market since the early 1990s. According to a research conducted by McGraw-Hill (Construction 2006) in 2004, green building has acc ounted for approximately two percent of the non-residential market in the U.S. This number is expected to be between five and ten percent, or roughly $10 and 20 billion, of the new non-resi dential market in the U.S. by 2010. Survey

PAGE 46

46 data from this study also shows 85 percent of th e architects and engineers surveyed have had some participation in green building activities and over half, 60 percent, have specified green products in their designs. Table 2-10 outlines the market identifiers and predicted trends based on McGraw-Hill research. This same survey indicated the largest obsta cle facing green building is perceived higher first costs. The most important reasons given for pursing green building are lowe r operating and energy costs as well as greater health and well bei ng. The greatest triggers for architectural and engineering firms to design to green standards are owner demand and owner concerns for energy costs, plus any potential rebates or incentives. Florida As this countrys population nears 300 million people, energy consumption and supply will be dramatically challenged to meet current demand rates. States economies are dependent on adequate and dependable supplies of energy. Both new technologies and conservation allow for greater means of control over energy consumpti on. Florida currently ranks third nationally in both population, approximately 18 million in 200 5, and in energy consumption. Government officials estimate over the next few years the st ates energy consumption needs may grow nearly 30%. Conservative estimates predict fuel cons umption increases from 28 million gallons a day to over 32 million gallons a day. The 2006 Florid a Energy Act provides a four year plan that holds a $75 million cache for improving energy effi ciencies within the state (Energy 2006). Floridas energy use is dominated by buildings. Just under half of the energy consumed in the state (47%) goes for buildi ng operations. The other half consists of transportation consumption at 35% and industry use at 18 % (Cen ter 2006). Building energy use is split almost evenly between homes (55%) and commercial buildi ngs (45%). Electricity powers over 90% of the demand.

PAGE 47

47 Air conditioning demands the largest share of demand in building operations, accounting for between 30 and 45% of total demand. Through th e use of current technol ogies it is believed that a 30% percent reduction of energy is prove n cost-effective, while the most aggressive strategies may be able to re duce consumption by 75%. Figure 2-2 illustrates average energy usage by demand for 8000 office buildings in the s outheast climate zone (e.g., Atlanta). Typical energy use is estimated to be 92.6 kBtu/sf (Geshwiler 2003). Florida Universities and Community Colleges Construction Background As of 1995 the states public universities and community coll eges have had individual control over their construction pro cesses with oversight provided by th eir local board of trustees. Each institution is responsible for monitoring a nd reporting their construc tion needs via capital improvement plans. Prior to decentralization, the Florida Department of Education staff, operating under construction policy guidelines adopted by the Board of Regents, made overriding decisions regarding capital improvement plans for the 11 public universities. The 28 individual community colleges tr aditionally functioned and continue to function with autonomy, submitting improvement plans to their local Boards of Trustees. Currently, the 11 state univer sities submit their overall capital improvement plans, including construction costs, to the Board of Governors (BOG) while the community colleges submit their plans to Division of Community Colleges and Workforce Education. The upper state divisions use the campus data to deve lop statewide funding recommendations to the Department of Educations K-20 Legislativ e Capital Outlay Budge t Requests. These recommendations are reviewed and compared to state projections for enrollment, space standards, and current facilities. The overall budget and allocation process is reviewed by several state level organizations, in conjunc tion with the Board of Education, Board of Governors (BOG), and institutions strategic plans.

PAGE 48

48 The Board of Governors (BOG) is the govern ing body of the Florid a State University System (SUS). The SUS BOG was established in 2003 by Florida constitutional amendment. It consists of a 17-member committee, of whic h 14 members are governor-appointed, and senate approved. The remaining members consist of the Commissioner of Education, the Chair of the Advisory Council of Faculty Senate s, and the president of the Flor ida Student Association. This Board oversees the 11 primary institutions as well as two additional and independent satellite campuses of the University of South Florida, lo cated on the St. Petersburg and Sarasota/Manatee campuses. The 11 primary institutions and corresponding student enrollment for academic year 2004-05 are listed in Table 2-11. Funding for University Projects Based on a March 2006 report from the Office of Program Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), Fiscal Year 20052006 funding for public universities and community college capital outlay projects was $743.8 million, which includes construction and infrastructure projects as well as land acquis itions. According to OPPAGA Public Education Capital Outlay (OPPAGA 2006), funds are the larg est source for postsecondary education fixed capital outlay projects. The use of PECO funds is limited to academic and academic support classified projects. Other sources of funding include general revenue, matching donor funds, and concurrency funds. Concurrency funds are typica lly used for infrastructure improvements such as utilities, roads, and drainage Non-state funds are derived from private funds and student fees. Student fee money is typically used to support student-related projects such as recreation projects. Additional projects are supported by foundations, boosters, private companies and individuals who may be approved by the legislature but are not subj ect to legislative oversight or policy guidelines.

PAGE 49

49 Construction Costs for Postsecondary Projects Postsecondary education costs tend to run hi gher than other K-12 education costs for a number of reasons. The OPPA GA (OPPAGA 2006) cites reasons for the increases as higher land costs, stricter building code s, and regulations and standards associated with postsecondary institutions. In addition, univers ity facilities tend to include st ate-of-the-art technology, and, depending on the individual universitys standard s, long-term life schedules for up to 100 years usage for a building. Contractors also have to deal with tight constr uction sites and limited disruption of ongoing campus activities. The Florida Department of Education (FDE) lis ts the breakdown of overall monies spent at the 11 major universities and the 28 supported community colleges. The overall differences in spending are related to the primary mission or goals of the two types of institutions. Community colleges do not bear the costs of residence ha lls and supporting research infrastructure, and reallocate this spending toward classroom space and vocational laboratories. The OOPAGA provided data outlined in Table 2-12 as reported in the March 2006 (OPPAGA 2006)report regarding postsecondary construction costs. It is important to note that the informa tion reported in Table 2-12 represents only construction costs based on initia l contract awards. Informati on in Table 2-12 does not include design and engineering costs and is not r econciled with final project cost data. UF, FSU, and UCF Cost Comparison Since the University of Florida is currently the only institution in the state university system that mandates LEED construction it is of in terest to compare its construction costs with non-LEED mandated institutions. The University of Florida (UF), Florida State University (FSU), and University of Central Florida (UCF ) have similar design programs, serve similar student bodies, and have simila r life-cycle usage plans for thei r buildings. The difficulty in

PAGE 50

50 comparing building program costs is the lim ited number of like projects with similar characteristics (i.e., facades, gross square footag es), however a cursory view of the data is worthwhile to demonstrate, at a minimum, that LEED programmed buildings do not differ greatly in general costs. Table 2-13 provide s a comparison of project costs across Florida campuses. Although the data in Table 2-13 is limited, it does demonstrate that overall the LEED process at the University of Florida does not ma ke it the most expensive building program in the state. In addition for the tw o UF projects that were pre-LEED mandate included in Table 2-13, the Whitney Center and Accounting Building, cost s were similar to pos t-LEED mandate costs. After Gross Square Footage (GSF) cost compar isons are made the typical next question is with regards to how professiona l fees are impacted by sustainable design. The previously discussed Davis-Langdon study illust rates that these costs may be driven by the experience of the design house rather than the general program requirements of a project. The University of Florida has gained experience fr om earlier projects for which th ey would allow additional lines within the budget for architects and engineers to participate a nd evaluate LEED processes and strategies. UF has addressed th e issue of professional fees in three ways. One, architect and engineer firms must have at l east two previous LEED certified projects within their current portfolio to be considered for work on campus. Two, professional fees are based on a fee curve that takes into account previous contract awar ds, function of the building, and gross square footage of building. This fee trends at approx imately 6.5% plus or minus 1% for most jobs on campus. The professional fees noted in Table 2-14 include two non-LEED projects as well as two expansion and renovation projects, the law school and library expansion that involved additional renovation design. In addition, en ergy modeling and commissioning costs are

PAGE 51

51 included in the professional fees for UF projects. Sustainable design processes are considered part of their general award. The third approach in which UF has curtailed requests for additional funding from designers is by havi ng staff assume the role of LEED Accredited Professional (AP) for all jobs. The LEED AP assigns, tracks, and reviews all LEED associated paper work and is the main contact with for the USGBC rega rding LEED registration, LEED submission, and LEED certification processes. University of Florida LEED History The uniqueness of design and construction make s it difficult to compare costs. Location, owners, contractors, standards, designers, types of contracts, regulations and requirements, program requirements, and timing all influence the final price of a project. This section focuses on the University of Florida (UF) experience with LEED. To begin the section will outline LEED projects built within the Univer sity of Florida system over the past ten years and describes how the processes has developed into being a national leader in the field of integrated sustainable construction. In 2001, the leadership within Facilities and Planning Department at the University of Florida, with support from the University Pres idents Office and various campus wide groups, adopted the USGBCs LEED based standards for all construction projects with budgets greater than one million dollars. This bold initiative was based on a conviction that integrated sustainable design offers more than mere energy saving, rather it is a system based, third party verification, and environmentally sensitive means, both in terms of external and internal design considerations, of delivering a s ound product with a long life cycle. These sustainable concepts were an extension of already ex isting practices with the planning department but with leadership and staffs personal commitment the LEED evaluati on process raised the ba r in terms of design

PAGE 52

52 deliverables and processes. Table 2-15 lists the projects that are registered with USGBC on the UFs campus along with their corresponding si ze in gross square footage (gsf). UFs plan of adoption followed means outlined in several texts regarding change and uptake of sustainable processes. The Sust ainable Building Technical Manual suggests the following benchmarks be established fo r initial review of the process: Establish vision statement that embraces sustainable principles and an integrated design approach. The project team should articula te a vision statement that will support and enforce sustainable goals throughout the project. Establish the projects green building goals developed from the vision statement. Establish green design criteria Set priorities for the project design. Crucial to this process is a vision statem ent that is accepted and supported throughout the entire projects design and constr uction cycle. Integrated sustai nable delivery differs from other forms of construction models in that it requ ires from designers to break away from their traditional form of linear design and to communicat e and adopt an integrated form of design. Over the past six years UFs planning depa rtment has transitioned from explaining LEED criteria to designers and contra ctors to demanding a history of LEED projects to qualify to be short-listed for review. This emphasizes the in roads sustainable techni ques have had on the construction industry in Florida as well as the ability for the University to influence positive change in its local build ing trades. UFs team made a strong and clear commitment to educate and train all parties involved re garding the LEED process. This took a dedicated and educated staff in the planning department to push for others to adopt and adapt to the new processes. The Sustainable Building Technical Manual emphasizes the design team selection as follows: Create a design and construction team that ut ilizes the whole-build ing integrated design approach.

PAGE 53

53 Develop a Statement of Work (SOW) and a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), in preparation for hiring appropriate design professionals. Select a team leader and encourage communi cation and integration among team members. Determine the most appropriate method for cont ractor selection, given the project goals. Through this process UFs planning department has developed several tools to track and manage the LEED process. These tools aid in assigning Credit responsibility among team members and recommendations for credit achievabil ity. The Universitys process is similar to that outlined in the GSA application guide. Fi gure 2-3 outlines UFs LEED process. Although UF has been practicing sustainable constructi on for some time the Facilities and Planning Department serve their individua l owner groups (i.e., colleges or schools which are receiving a new building) and as such struggle with educating these groups as to the value of LEED credits. In essence the university benefits from a non-trad itional green design, maximizes no-cost credits, and seeks to educate users groups as to the benefits of moderately costly credits. As Figure 2-3 illustrates costing points and searching for no-cost credits takes precedent over applicability of credits. Cost Impact of LEED Credits Currently the University of Fl orida is in the process of analyzing cost impacts per LEED credit with regard to a project s overall budget. Previously this information was not collected on a credit by credit basis across projects. Most pr ofessional fees associat ed with LEED such as energy modeling and commissioning were part of the universitys building program prior to LEED uptake and are not considered additiona l costs. In addition, LEED documentation processing is now processed by staff as part of th eir internal project mana gement responsibilities and is not charged as an additional cost to LEED projects. UF considers LEED credit costs as

PAGE 54

54 part of the building program and LEED processe s and analyzing tradeoffs has become standard practice. Cost estimates for my study were based on th ree sources: 1) Conceptual estimates and proven costs based on UF Facility and Planning experience with over 16 projects, 2) the GSA LEED Cost Study (GSA 2004), and 3) the Indian Health Services (IHS) LEED Cost Evaluation Study (IHS 2006). As mentioned previously he GSA estimates were conducted by the Steven Winter group and submitted and reviewed by the GS A analyzed the cost impacts and tradeoffs of LEED credits associated with two traditional GSA produced buildings, a 262,000 gross square foot (gsf) courthouse and a typical mid-rise modernization of a 306,000 gsf federal building. While the building types differ from a traditional campus style buildings the square footage costs fit within the range of a campus building types and the cost fo r much of the points is similar in their impact compared to typical commercial building construction. My study initially ca tegorized cost impacts in sim ilar fashion as the GSA study incorporated. Mandated program cost, those items required regardless of seeking LEED certification, and No Cost items are assigned LEED Cost Values (LCV) of 1 and 2 respectively while cost increases dire ctly related to LEED prerequisites are assigned values between 3 and 5 depending on their cost impacts between $50,000 do llars and over $150,000 dolla rs respectively. Cost impacts are assigned a value based on their estimated cost. Th e values are outlined in Table 2-16. Throughout this chapter each individual prerequi site and credit cost impacts will be noted by individually. Case studies wi ll be included where applicable. The LCV values are noted on the individual credit estimate sheets to provi de background information for project specific

PAGE 55

55 conceptual estimates. The LCV scores served as an initial evaluation tool to compare UFs experience with those of the GSA study and IHS study. Evaluation of LEED Prerequisites The LEED standard is comprised of seven prereq uisites that are requir ed in order to submit a project for LEED certification. The cost associat ed with these prerequisites, as with other credits as well, is highly dependent on th e variance between existing design and building requirements of the local authority and LEED require ments. One of the limitations to the costing node of the model is that all prerequisites are adopted as building standards for all projects during Phase I of the model. This acceptance is necessary to achieve LE ED certification and as such is considered a non-cost for the Phase II cost portion of the model. The seven prerequisites are as follows: Sustainable Sites o Prerequisite 1 Construc tion Activity Prevention Energy and Atmosphere o Prerequisite 1 Fundamental Commissi oning of the Building Energy Systems o Prerequisite 2 Minimum Energy Performance o Prerequisite 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Materials and Resources o Prerequisite 1 Storage a nd Collection of Recyclables Indoor Environmental Quality o Prerequisite 1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Performance o Prerequisite 2 Environmenta l Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control To provide a context for the evaluation of LEE D prerequisites the topic of cost anchoring is discussed next. In addition a case study examining additional vers us traditional costs is noted. Cost Anchoring and Adjusting Anchoring in decision processes vernacular refers to the process by which informal guesses are taken when estimating an amount (Beach and Connolly 2005). The difficulty with

PAGE 56

56 anchoring is that unless the person doing the estimating has valid concrete experiences with estimating whatever that is being evaluated is that the guess number is t ypically incorrect if not way off. Due to the amount of press and types of cost data provided, as noted in this chapter, costs for green design range anywhere from an initial cost savings to greater than 10% over conventional construction techniques. Cost me ntioned informally at the county budget meeting referenced at the introduction of this chapte r ranged as high as 30%. The DMASC decision model allows for credit consideration and cost to be separated where as not to influence the decision process until the final ranking. Should cost be the overriding factor it may be considered but the strength of the process is to evaluate the credits without cost anchoring influencing the process. One of the main reasons for the range in sustainable cost estimates is the fact that they studies do not account for standard program embe dded costs. For example, both fundamental and enhanced commissioning was considered standa rd practice at the University of Florida prior to the adoption of their LEED mandate. As such these costs are not considered as adds to their project budget. The GSA has a rath er progressive building standar d, as does the IHS, so the two study overall impacts do not include items already included in their base programs. Figure 2-4 illustrates the relationship between building standards and LEED first costs. An example of examining LEED costs is the ca se of the North Boulder Recreation Center which earned a LEED Silver certification in March 2003 (Colorado 2003). The North Boulder recreation center tracked costs associated with achieving thei r LEED Silver rating. Table 2-17. list the LEED associated costs for the recreation center. The big ticket items with regard to c onstruction costs was $256,000 for a solar water system that pre-heats wate r for the recreation swimming pool s, $32,000 for higher efficient

PAGE 57

57 boilers, $7,400 for additional commissioning, an d $157,300 for additional material costs across the achieved credits. The point of examini ng this case is to examine the non-construction upgrade costs. The energy modeling cost s ($33,000), commissioning costs ($24,300 plus $7,400), and integrated design consul tant costs ($15,450) are consider ed extras for the city of Boulder but not so currently at the University of Florida. Although UF initially provided line items in budgets for accounting for similar costs on their first green buildings they no longer do so. Energy modeling and commissioning were cons idered part of the design standard prior to LEED and expected on all buildings pre and post the adoption of the LEED mandate. There is no longer an integrated design consultant assigned to projects at the University of Florida. Architects, engineers, and contra ctors must have two prior LEED jobs completed to be shortlisted to work on UF projects. In addition LEED processing is assigned to the UF Facility and Planning staff to handle in-house. Florida Code and LEED Prerequisites Florida Building Code 2004 is based primarily on the incorporation of the following codes: National and Intern ational Codes: o International Building Code 2003 edition o International Plumbing Code 2003 edition o International Mechanical Code 2003 edition o International Fuel Gas Code 2003 edition o International Residential Code 2003 edition o International Existing Bu ilding Code 2003 edition o National Electrical Code 2002 edition o American Society of Heating, Refrig erating and Air-condi tioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1-2001 State and Local Codes o Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction o Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction o Special hurricane protection standards fo r the high-velocity hurricane zone.

PAGE 58

58 The USGBC references the following code s with regard to various credits and prerequisites relating to bu ilding codes and practices: 2003 EPA Construction General Permit Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide, EPA/600/R-04/121A, September 2004 ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 2004, Energy Sta ndard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential: o Section 5 Building Envelope o Section 6 Heating, Ventila tion and Air Conditions (HVAC) o Section 7 Service Water Heating o Section 8 Power (including al l building power distribution) o Section 9 Lighting (without amendments) o Section 10 Other Equipment (all permanently wired electrical motors) o Appendix G Performance Rating Method (Energy Modeling) ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guid e for Small Office Buildings 2004 ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2004: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality ASHRAE Standard 55-2004, Thermal Comf ort Conditions for Human Occupancy ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2-1999: Method of Testing General Ventilation Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size The Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992 (Plumbing Standard) International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Volume III: Concepts and Options for Determining Ener gy Savings in New Construction, April 2003 IAQ Guidelines for Occupied Buildings Under Construction EPA Compendium of Methods for the Determ ination of Air Pollutants in Indoor Air The USGBC requires only three specific project standards to meet LEED prerequisites. Should a prerequisite not be met then the pr oject would not receive LEED certification. Table 2-18 lists the LEED pr erequisites that have an associat ed reference standard. The USGBC does allow for the incorporation of local standards should they be more stringent than the stated reference standards.

PAGE 59

59 Sustainable Site Prerequisite The intent of the Sustainable Site Prerequi site 1 regarding eros ion and sedimentation control is to reduce the negative impacts on water and air quality on and surrounding the construction site. The requirements involve desi gning erosion and sedimentation control plan that meets or exceeds the 2003 EPA Construction General Permit, or local erosion control standards, whichever is more stringent regardless of project size. The USGBC lists the objectives of the plan as follows: Prevent loss of soil during c onstruction by stormwater r unoff and/or wind erosion, including protecting topso il by stockpiling for reuse. Prevent sedimentation of storm sewer or receiving streams. Prevent polluting the air with dust and particulate matter. This is a good example of a prerequisite or cr edit that may be of no cost should the local authority meet or exceed the EPA standard. This credit is considered to have a LEED Cost Value (LCV) of one since this has become standa rd practice at university main campuses in the state. Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 1 Fundamental Commissioning Prerequisite 1 Fundamental Building Systems Commissi oning of the Energy and Atmosphere category focuses on verifying that fundamental building systems are designed, installed and operating as intended. The USGBC outlines the requirements as follows: Designate an independent e xperienced individual as the Commissioning Authority (CxA) to lead, review and oversee the completion of the commissioning process activities. The Owner shall document the Owners Project Requirements (OPR) and the Design team shall develop the Basis of Design (BOD). The team shall develop and incorporate comm issioning requirements into the construction documents.

PAGE 60

60 Develop and implement a commissioning plan. Verify the installation and performan ce of the systems to be commissioned. Complete a summary commissioning report. The USGBC stresses the importance of havi ng the following minimum energy-related systems included in the plan and final report: Heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVAC and R) systems (mechanical and passive and associated controls. Lighting and daylighting controls. Domestic hot water systems. Renewable energy systems. Commissioning tends to be the mo st costly and debated of a ll the prerequisites if it is currently not part of the local building program. From an owners perspective questions arise as to the need for having an additional party invol ved in checking other professionals work, and Contractors echo similar sentiments along with issues relating to documenting and meeting additional burdens placed on them as a result of the commissioning plan. Owners currently incorporating various leve ls of commissioning site the complexity of systems, lack of Contractor quality control with regard to checking syst ems, and cost savings of having a properly functioning building as driving forces in favor for some level of commissioning. The commissioning industry reports benefits that include: Improved building system control and performance Improved indoor air quality, occupant comfort, and productivity Decreased potential for owner liability Studies show an annual energy savi ngs of between 15 and 30 percent Early detection of potential problems For the University of Florida this prerequi site has a LCV of one since commissioning was part of the building program prio r to the uptake of LEED. For building programs that currently

PAGE 61

61 do not incorporate commissioning the cost ra nges are considered considerable by many professionals not convinced of the overall commissioning process value. The Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. (PEC) (Portland Energy Conservation 2002), provides guidelines with regard to the cost associated with commissioning. Table 2-19 outlines commissioning costs based on phase or construction elements. The general ru le sited by the PEC is that commissioning will run between 0.6 and 1.8% of the overall constructi on costs of a project. Using a construction budget of $7 million for an average campus school building as an example the commission fee would range between $42,000 and $126,000. For program s not including this as a base program costs, this would earn this prerequisite a LC V of 3 for Fundamental Commissioning required to meet this prerequisite or LCV of 4 for enhan ced commissioning services related to Energy and Atmosphere Credit 3. The GSA reports that fundamental commi ssioning runs approximately $0.75 to $1.00 per gross square foot (GSF) with more comprehensive commissioning costing slightly higher than that range. Since commissioning is considered a GSA standard the GSA report does not include commissioning as an increase cost to subscribe to LEED standards. This does not mean that it is free. Using the GSA suggested costs for the ba se courthouse it would have been an additional a dollar extra for each square foot and would result in a cost impact of $262,000.00. Given the $57,640,000.00 total construction cost budget, the overall impact to as a percentage would have been a 0.5% cost increase to th e total construction budget. UFs Facilities Department confirms the cost for the prerequisite commissioning and Energy and Atmosphere Credit 3 combined is approximately $0.75 per gross square foot.

PAGE 62

62 Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 2 Minimum Energy Performance Prerequisite 2 Minimum Energy Performan ce of the Energy and Atmosphere category focuses on establishing and meeting minimum energy requirements based on ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004. For the University of Florida this was a no cost item since this standard applied prior to the adoption of LEED standards and as been amen ded as ASHRAE has updated its standard. According to university staff and contracts en ergy modeling at costs has remained steady at $0.25 per gross square foot on recent projects. For university campuses not incorporating this standard the additional costs would have to be compiled by an engineering service familiar both with the current standard and the LEED applied ASHRAE/IESNA standard. Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 3 CF C Reduction in HVAC and R Equipment Prerequisite 3 CFC Reducti on in HVAC and R Equipment of the Energy and Atmosphere category focuses on zero use of CFC-based refrig erants in HVAC and R systems. Should a project be reusing equipment then a complete CFC phase-out conversion plan is required. In the United States CFC-based refrigerant s are no longer available as options for new equipment. This has a LCV of 1 being a no cost option. Materials and Resources Prerequisite 1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables Storage and Collection of Recyclables Prereq uisite 1 of the Materials and Resources category focuses on providing means and space for recycl ables. The intent of this prerequisite is to reduce tenant generated waste that would be disposed of by traditional means (i.e., landfills). Designers must coordinate the size of the recycl ed area based on the square footage of the overall building. Most government institutions require or support recycling efforts and as such this is minimal or no cost prerequisite.

PAGE 63

63 Recycling mandates across campus support and in sist on recycling e fforts be conducted on campuses. The size requirements and design effort s are not a burden with regard to cost and meet the overall design program of most campus buildings. Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 1 Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 1 regarding Minimum IAQ Performance focuses on providing adequate i ndoor air quality that will su pport tenant productivity and comfort. The USGBC outlines the minimum requi rements as meeting Sections 4 through 7 of ASHRAE 62.1-2004, Ventilation for Acceptable I ndoor Air Quality. In addition, mechanical ventilation systems shall be designed using the Vent ilation Rate Procedure or the applicable local code, whichever is more stringent. For naturally ventilated buildings ASHRAE 62.1-2004, paragraph 5.1, shall apply. The cost associated with this prerequisite is largely dependent on current local standards and the experience and familiarity of the designe rs with the applicable ASHRAE standards. Should local standards already incorporate these t ypes of requirements then it should be no additional costs; for those unfamiliar with the st andards there may be initial learning curve cost associated with design. Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 2 regarding Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control is probably the most diverse prer equisite in that desi gners are given choices regarding conditions that satisfy the requirement. The intent of the standard is to limit or minimize the building occupants, surfaces, and ventilation system to tobacco smoke. The USGBC lists three options that will meet the intent of this prerequisite: OPTION 1 Prohibit smoking in building.

PAGE 64

64 Locate any exterior designated smoking areas at least 25 feet away fr om entries, outdoor air intakes and operable windows. OPTION 2 Prohibit smoking in the building exce pt in designated smoking areas Locate any exterior designated smoking areas at least 25 feet away fr om entries, outdoor air intakes and operable windows. Locate designated smoking rooms to effectivel y contain, capture and remove ETS from the building. At a minimum, the smoking room mu st be directly exha usted to the outdoors with no re-circulation of ETS-containing air to the non-smoking area of the building, and enclosed with impermeable deck-to-deck partit ions. Operate exhaust to create negative air pressures with regard to adjacent spaces. Performance of the smoking room differential air pressures shall be verified by conducting measurements of the differential pressure in the smoking room w ith respect to each adjacent area and in each adjacent vertical chase with the doors to the smoking room closed. OPTION 3 (For residen tial buildings only) Prohibit smoking in all comm on areas of the building. Locate any exterior designated smoking areas at least 25 feet away fr om entries, outdoor air intakes and operable windows opening to common areas. Minimize uncontrolled pathways for ETS transf er between individual residential units by sealing penetrations in walls ceilings, and floors in the re sidential units, and by sealing vertical chases ad jacent to the units. All doors leading to common hallways shall be weather-stripped to minimize air leakage into the hallway, unless properly pressurized with respect to re sidential units. Testing and sampling per ANSI/ASTM-E779-03, Standard Test Method for Determining Air Leakage Rate by Fan Pressurization, is required to meet this option. The majority of institutional and government buildings are designated no-smoking and meet Option 1 above at no additional design or eq uipment costs and is assigned a LCV of 1. For buildings selection Option 2 or 3 a takeoff of additional equipment, design effort, and testing requirements would have to be included as an additional cost over base design.

PAGE 65

65 Separation of Preference and Cost The unique aspect of the USGBC LEED criteria is that there is no single way to meet any of the certification levels. Si milarly, designers, within code limits, may produce any number of versions of a building that meet the program goals set forth by the owner. Contractors are often given plans and a sum of money and are left to their own experience to develop a successful project schedule and means to achieve the schedule Sustainable integrated design, in particular those pursuing third party certification (e.g. LEED accr editation), in effect require that designers and contractors meet basic prescriptive program design and project delivery requirements. Overall design and construction cost impacts ar e heavily influenced by local design standards concurrency with sustainable sta ndards, contractor methods, site selection, and points pursued throughout the certification processes. During th e integrated design proc ess seeking low-cost LEED points tends to override th e applicability of th e points to the project and the owners original program goals. The focus of this chapter is to develop a method for local decision makers, both in supervisory and direct construc tion roles, to evaluate their current building delivery system, establish preferences for more sustainable practices, and determine the impact these preferences have in achieving LEED certification. Sustainable ideals transform th e way in which buildings are delivered and the way in which design considerations are evaluated. As discussed previously sustainable delivery methods require designers at all levels to commun icate and integrate their design responsibilities. Likewise traditional monetary evaluation methods such as Return-On-Investment, net-present value, rate of return, and payback, need to be expended to include non-financial characteristics, such as the value of better indoor air quality and daylight, which are require judgment to monetize. Qualitative impacts may be too costly to quantify, or impossible to determine, but their impact in a building program may be obvious Because of the difference in nature in

PAGE 66

66 evaluating these characteristics a me thod for evaluating the combined impacts of these criteria is needed. My study looks to the field of multiatt ribute decision analysis (MADA) for methods to accommodate non-monetary benefits and cost s (Norris and Marshall 1995). MADA type decision models are best suited for decisions involv ing a generally small set of discrete variables such as certification checklis ts. In addition the overall me thodology/study design borrows from work that evaluated the cost-benefits of select ing data management syst ems (Su, Dujmovic et al. 1987). This model serves the following primary goals: Provides a mathematically based theory for evaluating sustainable criteria Provides a systematic method for deriving decisions Provides an evaluation technique for incorpor ating both cost data and decision makers preferences Current building methods are typically evalua ted periodically by facility personnel and various identities associated w ith campus planning and construction. Changes to construction methods typically do not occur unl ess there is a perceived need to make improvements to the global performance level. Once the decision is ma de that there is a need to upgrade the existing global performance levels the organization th en moves to the analysis phase and goal identification. Examples of improvement with regard to more sustainable building methods might be the inclusion of LEED cr iteria for all construc tion projects, greater energy performance, or reduced water consumption. In addition to identifying the goals for an improved system, a thorough review of estimated resources needed to carry out the changes would ha ve to take place. This review would have to examine the affects the shift in methods would have on infrastructure and personnel associated with the improved methods. Should it be decided that the new goals fall inline with the program assessment then the decision to change to a more sustainable program is made.

PAGE 67

67 At this point the organization is faced with myriad decisions regarding how to implement change. The organization may stress energy perfo rmance of their building as the key to their improved system. It may decide worker productivity be emphasized. It may be obvious that first costs for design and construction are the limiting f actors overriding all other sustainable goals. Both preference impact and cost must be cons idered to determine the best alternative.

PAGE 68

68 Figure 2-1. Relationship between LEED alternatives and outcomes Sustainable Sites Water Efficiency Energy and Atmosphere Materials and Resources Indoor Environmental Quality LEED Criteria Outcomes Building Performance Environment Social Occupant Health

PAGE 69

69 Figure 2-2. Building demand for averag e southeast commercial building Lighting 36% Water heating 4% Ventilation 8% Space cooling 14% Space heating 12% Othe r 26%

PAGE 70

70 Figure 2-3. University of Flor ida LEED credit evaluation steps Step 1: Evaluate LEED Prerequisites Step 2: Evaluate UF Recommended Credits Step 3: Evaluate Non-applicable Credits Step 4: Evaluate No Cost and Low Cost Credits Step 5: Review LEED Scorecard after Initial Considerations Ste p s 1-4 Step 6: Evaluate Moderate and High Cost Credits Step 7A: Review High Design Impact Credits Step 7B: Review Synergistic and Integrated Design Tradeoffs Step 8: Establish Initial LEED Approach for Project Initial Considerations Design Evaluations

PAGE 71

71 Figure 2-4. LEED first cost imp acts based on building standards

PAGE 72

72 Table 2-1. Initial capital construc tion costs for IHS LEED projects Certified Silver LEED Construction cost impacts Low High Low High Cost impact $170,700 $507,900 $589,700 $1,268,500 $/Gross Square Foot $2.01 $5.98 $6.95 $14.94 % Change 1.0% 3.0% 3.5% 7.9% Table 2-2. USGBC Sample cost data Design Effort and Hard Costs Documentation Costs Alternative Design Effort Hard Costs No Added Cost No add for Exemplary Design Doc. Costs Learning Curve Reduce SSCredit 1 Site E SSCredit 2 Density E $$ SSCredit 4.1 Alternative Transportation E $ SSPrereq 1 Pollution + $ SSCredit 4.4 Alternative Transportation + $ SSCredit 6.1 Storm Quantity + $ SSCredit 7.1 Heat Island Non-Roof ++ $ SSCredit 8 Light ++ $ Table 2-3. LEED criteria development Year LEED Criteria 1994/1995 Pass/Fail Criteria 1998 LEED 1.0 Pilot Program 2000 LEED 2.0 2004 LEED 2.1 2005 LEED 2.2

PAGE 73

73 Table 2-4. LEED certification levels Certification Level Points Certified 26 to 32 Silver 33 to 38 Gold 39 to 51 Platinum 52 or more Table 2-5. LEED 2.2 rating system points per category Category Number of alternatives Number of possible points Water Efficiency 3 5 Material and Resources 7 13 Sustainable Sites 8 14 Indoor Environment 8 15 Energy and Atmosphere 6 17 Subtotal: 64 Design Innovation and LEED Professional: 2 5 Total: 69 (USGBC 2007) Table 2-6. LEED certified a nd registered projects Project Level New Construction Commercial Interiors Existing Building Core and Shell Total Registered 4,572 579 356 478 5,985 Certified 600 110 42 29 781

PAGE 74

74 Table 2-7. Business case for high pe rformance green buildings summary 1. In The event up-front costs are higher for high performance green buildings, they can be recovered. 2. Integrated design lowers ongoing operating costs. 3. Better buildings equate to better employee productivity. 4. New technologies enhan ce health and wellbeing. 5. Healthier buildings can reduce liability. 6. Tenants costs can significantly be reduced. 7. Property value will increase. 8. Many financial incentive programs are available. 9. Communities will notice your efforts. 10. Using best practices yields more predictable results. Table 2-8. Florida LEED certified pr ojects location and award level Happy Feet Plus Clearwater Gold Stetson University DeLand Certified University of Florida-Gainesville Campus Gainesville Gold University of Florida Gainesvi lle Campus Gainesville Certified Navy Federal Credit Union Pensacola Gold Sarasota County Government Sarasota Gold Whole Foods Market Sarasota Silver Sarasota County Government Sarasota Gold Table 2-9. Number of Florida LEED registered projects by owner type Federal Government 8 Local Government 12 Nonprofit Corporation 7 Other 9 Profit Corporation 21 State Government 6 Total 63

PAGE 75

75 Table 2-10. Impacts of green building by survey respondents Market Identifier Predicted Trend Operating costs Decrease operating costs between 8.0 and 9.0 % across the industry. Building values Average increase in value expected to be approximately 7.5 % Return-on-investment (ROI) On average, to improve to 6.6 % Occupancy ratio Increase by 3.5 % Rent ratio Expected to rise by 3.0 % on average. Table 2-11. Florida universi ty enrollment for 2004-05 University Under graduate Graduate Underclass Total Percent Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, Tallahassee 10,3721,529278 12,1794.3% Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton 19,9513,3862,367 25,7049.0% Florida Gulf Coast University, Ft. Myers 5,978762524 7,2642.5% Florida International University, Miami 28,4065,0853,484 36,97513.0% Florida State University Tallahassee 30,4187,9261,308 39,65213.9% New College of Florida, Sarasota 76101 7620.3% University of Central Florida, Orlando 37,5686,3281,057 44,95315.8% University of Florida, Gainesville 34,02814,3101,378 49,72517.4% University of North Florida, Jacksonville 13,077 1,618658 15,3535.4% University of South Florida, Tampa 32,9687,9102,143 43,02115.1% University of West Florida, Pensacola 7,8281,239634 9,7013.4% Total state university system 221,35550,09313,841 285,289100.0%

PAGE 76

76 Table 2-12. Floridas post-secondary construction costs based on 2004 data Building Type National Median Total Cost National Low Quartile Cost/Square Foot National Median Cost/Square Foot National High Quartile Cost/Square Foot Florida Median Cost/Square Foot (2004) Academic $8,000,000 $129.09 $172.82 $221.11 $148.73 Library $16,000,000 $191.48 $235.29 $326.62 $152.58 Office $6,500,000 $107.64 $138.44 $235.29 $155.11 Science $20,000,000 $201.83 $240.00 $294.05 $183.99

PAGE 77

77 Table 2-13. Comparison of proj ect costs on Florida campuses Florida State University Project Bid Date Build Type Total Budget GSF Cost/GSF College of Medicine May-03 Research $60,246,450 299,092 $201 Communications Building Apr-02 Teaching $32,970,968 163,518 $202 Psychology Oct-04 Research $49,819,662 184,679 $270 Classroom Facility Sep-05 Class $22,636,289 88,000 $257 Chemistry Building Sep-05 Research $53,939,705 168,063 $321 University of Central Florida Project Bid Date Build Type Total GSF Cost/GSF Alumni Center (FairWinds) Aug-04 Office $4,959,864 17,983 $276 Psychology Jul-05 Office $14,136,600 76,257 $185 Student Health Center Aug-04 Office $6,500,000 48,725 $133 University of Florida Project Bid Date Build Type Total GSF Cost/GSF Orthopaedic Surgery Jan-03 Research $26,929,411 120,000 $224 *Accounting Classroom Building Jan-02 Class $9,063,800 51,089 $177 Library West Nov-03 Library $30,942,207 177,000 $175 Law Info Center Jan-03 Library $25,328,042 132,620 $191 *Whitney Center for Marine Studies Feb-05 Teaching $3,152,300 19,750 $160 Note: University of Florida projects highlig hted with asterisk (*) are pre-LEED mandated projects.

PAGE 78

78 Table 2-14. Comparison of professional fee percentage across campuses Florida State University Project GSF Professional Fees Percent of Total Budget College of Medicine 299,092 $4,091,788 6.8% Communications Building 163,518 $2,397,105 7.3% Psychology 184,679 $2,830,000 5.7% Classroom Facility 88,000 $1,074,301 4.7% Chemistry Building 168,063 $4,789,312 8.9% Average 6.7% University of Central Florida Project GSF Professional Fees Percent of Total Budget Alumni Center (FairWinds) 17,983 $307,208 6.2% Psychology 76,257 $776,660 5.5% Student Health Center 48,725 $238,372 3.7% Average 5.1% University of Florida Project GSF Professional Fees Percent of Total Budget Orthopaedic Surgery 120,000 $2,507,458 9.3% *Accounting Classroom Building 51,089 $789,700 8.7% Library West 177,000 $1,910,890 6.2% Law Info Center 132,620 $2,049,745 8.1% *Whitney Center for Marine Studies 19,750 $215,100 6.8% Average 7.8% Note: University of Florida projects highlight ed with asterisk (*) are pre-LEED mandated projects.

PAGE 79

79 Table 2-15. University of Fl orida green building stock Building Gross Square Footage (gsf) Band Building 11,263 Baseball Lockers 15,000 Biomedical Science 163,000 Cofrin-Harn Pavilion (LEED Certified) 19,240 Genetics/Cancer Research 280,000 Hub Renovation 53,000 IFAS 5,550 Law Library 132,620 Library West McGuire Center (LEED Certified) 177,000 54,000 Nanoscience Institute 53,000 Powell Structures Lab (LEED Certified) 8,565 Pugh Hall 45,000 Rinker Hall (LEED Gold) 46,530 Sports Medicine (LEED Certified) 119,105 Stadium Expansion 49,000 Veterinary Facility 11,900 Total gsf 1,208,443 Table 2-16. LEED cost values (LCV) Cost Impact Category Value University mandate (part of existing building program) 1 No or Minor cost (<$500) / Potential savings 2 Low cost impact (<$50 K) 3 Moderate cost impact ($50K $150K) 4 High cost impact (>$150K) 5 Table 2-17. Associated LEED costs for North Boulder Recreation Center Items required to achieve LEED Item Cost LEED registration $750 LEED certification $1,500 Integrated design consultant $15,450 Energy modeling $33,000 Commissioning $24,300 Total cost of construction/equipment upgrades $461,700 Total $536,700 Total % (as percent of the $11.6 million projec t budget) 4.6%

PAGE 80

80 Table 2-18. LEED prere quisite standards LEED Prerequisite Re ferenced Standard Sustainable Sites Construction Activity Pollution Prevention 2003 EPA Construction General Permit Energy and Atmosphere Minimum Energy Performance ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 (referenced sections) Indoor Environmental Quality (IAQ) Minimum IAQ Performance ASHRAE 62.1-2004 (referenced sections) Table 2-19. Construction phase commissioning costs Commissioning System Commissioning Cost HVAC and controls 2.0% to 3.0% of total mechanical system Electrical system 1.0% to 2.0% of total electrical system HVAC, controls, and electrical 0.5% to 1.5% of total construction costs

PAGE 81

81 CHAPTER 3 DECISION MODEL METHODOLOGY Introduction The Decision Model for Assessment of Sust ainable Construction (DMASC) outlined in Figure 3-1 provides a systematic ap proach for determining cost impacts associated with adopting sustainable building processes and techniques. The model consists of three main phases. Phase I address the institutional-wide analysis of traditional construction and building methods, institutional resources, and rationales for seek ing a change to sustainable methods. Phase II presents the Logical Scoring of Preferences (LSP) portion of the model. Phase III involves the final decision making portion of the model. The model establishes program requirements; in this case United States Green Building Councils (U SGBC) Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED)-NC 2.2, then splits the decision pr ocesses into separate cost and preference analysis, and finally combines both evaluation methods into a si ngle cost preference analysis phase. Current Building Method Current building delivery methods and standards vary throughout the state. With regard to university construction programs each has its ow n building standard. Building standards are periodically evaluated for such things as code compliance, co nstruction material trends and availability, and technological fi t. A key difference between the University of Floridas (UF) LEED based standards and other campus standards throughout the state is that UFs Building Standard provides a mandate for LEED certification. Other institutions, such as the University of Central Florida (UCF) list sust ainable practices as recommended or suggested practices where practical. The DMASC model provi des institutions a systematic framework to review current standards.

PAGE 82

82 Existing Delivery Method Performance Evaluation University personnel provide architects, designers, engineers, and contractors with building standards or guidelines that describe the requirements a nd preferences that apply to all university projects. These guide lines typically state that the designers are to incorporate applicable portions of the gui de into contract documents (i.e., contract drawings and specifications). In turn, contract ors are to follow prescriptive guidelines during the course of a project. These guidelines generally provide a caveat that allows for modifications and clarifications to guidelines wh en opportunities for change and or conflicts among professionals arise. In addition designers and builders must comply with various life-s afety codes, building codes, and policy requirements of the university staff. Similarly, the USGBC requires that certain prerequisites be met per the designate d prescriptive standards or methods. These prerequisites are similar to a dhering to ADA requirements or fi re codes in that require an understanding of the design intent and a fulfillmen t of design or performance standard. An example of such a prerequisite would be the Su stainable Sites Prerequi site 1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention which addresses re duced pollution from construction activities. The prerequisite requires the contractor to cr eate and adhere, and document adherence, to a erosion and sedimentation control (ECS) plan that conforms or goes beyond the 2003 EPA Construction General Permit. In addition to including meeting LEED as an overall project objective, individual prerequisite and desired alternatives would have to be annotated throughout the guidelines and specifications. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the evaluation of credits is based on the acceptance of LEED pr erequisite requirements.

PAGE 83

83 At this stage in the process the entire build ing delivery system is evaluated on a set of performance and cost impacts. For My study the main criteria used for this evaluation are as follows: Environmental factors Social factors Building performance factors (ene rgy and water efficiencies) Health and productivity of workers Construction costs Design costs A simple table indicating whether or not th e current system addresses these concerns provides the basis for the evaluati on. The evaluation is based on a pass/fail premise to provide a global evaluation. Table 3-1 lists sample evaluation checklist. Global Performance Level The global performance level is key point in wh ich the decision to pur sue or consider more sustainable practices is often made. For proponents of green design this change seems obvious, for skeptics this change may seem burdensome and unnecessary. Proponents see building trends towards green building and scien tific and anecdotal persuasive arguments in favor of green design. These supporters see the holistic a nd ecological balance that LEED buildings may contain. They are interested in what final building design has to o ffer in terms of tenant comfort, reduced environmental impacts, and reduced en ergy consumption. Arguments for LEED based design include the following: Better indoor air quality to improve employee productivity Better indoor air quality improves employees health and well-being Integrated design processe s lowering operating costs Healthier buildings reduce liability Best practices produces more predictable outcomes in terms of building performance Reduced impacts translates to enviro nment and social community benefits Lessened burden on municipal infrastructure in terms of energy and sewer requirements

PAGE 84

84 Those opposed to change typically stand on th e sole premise that it is not worth the additional upfront design and construction costs. They propose these upfront costs impact the functionality and size of a project. An example of this claim is the total useable square-footage of building space is often sacrificed in lieu of th e increased costs. In addition to the increased cost arguments those against change also understand the education curve involved throughout the process to effect change and the amount of effo rt and resources it take s to educate all those involved in the process. See Figure 3-2 wh ich details necessary education conduits among construction participants. Barriers to green design include: Lack of life-cycle co st analysis and use Real and perceived perceptions of increased first costs Budget separation between cons truction and operation costs Divide between building aesthetics, function, operation, and human needs Too much paperwork to achieve credit appr ovals and final certif ication from USGBC Informal resistance to change from those involved in the building process This stage is one in which the facilities staff reviews current building practices and building stock. The staff would then compare cu rrent practices with those required by LEED. The evaluation may be simply reviewing current LEED standards to the local standards. This evaluation would determine the greenness of the lo cal standards. Once this baseline evaluation has been performed, the next step may be to complete a LEED scorecards for the last five applicable projects completed to determine the hypothetical point total for these projects. These totals would provide a snapshot to evaluate the areas for improvement and possible costs associated with performance improvement. This is similar to the Davis-Langdon approach of evaluating the non-LEED projects. Goal Identification and Program Assessment This stage is one in which the influentia l and deciding players move beyond the question of can we do it? to developing a path that identifies improvements needed to be made and

PAGE 85

85 begin to develop strategic and program assessments. Goal identification disc ussions need to take place regarding time tables for change and what t ype of certification is to be sought regarding future projects. Key personnel need to identified to champion different aspects of sustainable impacts and what levels of improved performanc e will be sought (i.e., water use reduction or energy reduction). Reviewing data from th e Global Performance Level with heads of departments responsible or in co ntrol of possible improvements is a key step. This provides feedback with regard to possi ble improvements and an educati on opportunity to sway decision makers as to the possible improvements. It is beneficial at this point to identify the in formal and formal barriers to change within the organization that will resist th e process of moving to more su stainable building practices. Special transition sessions and educational seminars may be needed to win over various individuals and departments w ithin the organization. Decision to Change This is the point in which a project is re gistered with the USGBC and the process of moving from the existing development process to the more sustainable development process takes place. Without question this is the most di fficult step for an organization or individual with regards to change. The decision to move fr om status quo is always difficult within an organization. Typically the decision is a pres criptive one (Beach and Connolly 2005) which is based on the assumption that the decision make r will do what is best for the company or organization. The premise to the decision is that what is best or most favorable has the most favorable outcome with maximum benefits or lim ited loses. Decision make rs, like those at the University of Florida chose sustainable cons truction practices because they perceive the processes, and final products, to have greater be nefits than the previous traditional methods.

PAGE 86

86 The next part of the decision process involves cost. Decision makers at the county budget meeting I mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 2 were concerned project gross square footage costs would increase as a resu lt of implementing green standa rds. They were clear that regardless of benefits or proposed savings initial cost was the factor driving their decision to change. The level of understandi ng the benefits of sustainable c onstruction were very low within this circle of decision makers. They perceived change as a risk that was accompanied by a real cost that they would have to explain and budget for in the very short term. Once a decision maker is exposed to the benefits and utility of sustainable desi gn they look toward impacts and improvements the process has over traditional de sign. The DMASC model provides both a cost branch and preference impact branch to allow for various options with rega rd to both cost and perceived benefits. While each project is different in terms of sc ope and use, the initial evaluation process, architectural conceptual proce sses, and various department a nd committee inputs take place for all jobs. The sustainable LEED based approach to design benefits from an integrated approach in which all stakeholders have input to the design and constructi on process. This is a drastic change from the traditional linear design approach in which plans are passed from the architect to the engineer and from the engineer to the c ontractor and from the cont ractor to the operations staff, all in which takes place void of any tena nt or community input. See Figure 3-3 and 3-4 which illustrates the differences between tr aditional and integrated design relationships. The process of moving from a linear design appr oach to an integrated one may meet with some resistance. Strong players from the trad itional school may not see the benefits of the additional inputs, however previous ly excluded players tend to suppor t the process. The benefits of including user groups in desi gn decisions have been incorp orated in other design based

PAGE 87

87 businesses such as automobile manufacturing for years. Designs are often improved with feedback from those who use, install, support, and maintain equipment that is selected for use in a project. Compatibility issues, performance tr adeoffs (i.e., daylighting strategies), Return-OnInvestment (ROI) strategies, and cost savings may also be addressed during this time. Location of equipment to minimize installation costs and support ease of maintenance will improve the overall quality of a job. All of these types of resolutions ma y be a result of breaking the traditional model and forcing designers, engineers, and users to discuss the options that meet the Owners overall sustainable design program. At this point in the decision process the pr erequisite standards would be adopted by the decision makers. The DMASC model provides a no cost constraint for these prerequisites. However, costs noted for energy modeling and commi ssioning were included in the UF analysis. Logical Scoring of Preferences After the initial decision is made to move fr om the existing construc tion program to a more sustainable program the evaluation of project specific alternativ es begins. The following is a descriptive summary of the logica l scoring of preferences (LSP) m odel. The model is used to analyze and evaluate sustainable requiremen ts based on LEED for New Construction (NC) version 2.2. The LSP Method portion of the model is shown in Figure 3-5. Sustainable Requirements and Parameter Tree The sustainable requirements and parameter (S RP) tree stage is designed to preliminarily assign cost impacts and preferences to the selected alternative. In this case the SRP criteria is composed of the LEED major categ ories and corresponding alternat ives. Owner preferences or impacts are defined by building performance, envi ronment, social and health. Using the LEED checklist as the basis for the tree design allows for meaningful comparisons for decision makers while developing their sustainable building program. Figure 3-6 il lustrates how the LEED

PAGE 88

88 checklist transfers to the SRP format. At th e outset, the SRP tree cat egory nodes are divided by LEED general categories with applic able prerequisites being labele d R for requirement. Each of these categories, or nodes, is then broken dow n into their decomposed individual lower level subcategories, or nodes or alternatives, based on the following general criteria. The decomposition of each general categor y should account for how (a) the existing program meets the prerequisite and (b) what costs are incurred to develop and meet the new program requirements. These nodes are represented, or labeled, as R for requirement, P for preference or impact, and C for cost. Beyond the LEED prerequisite nodes, the SR P model accounts for each individual alternative. Since these a lternatives are not required to achieve LEED certification the corresponding nodes are labeled P for preferen ce or impact and C for cost. Each node is represented under its unique parent br anch and no two sublevel nodes appear under different parent branches. A C or cost node may be broken down into two or more distinct costs such as higher initial cost for certified woods or impact s or standard implying no additional costs compared to traditional methods. The decomposition of a C or cost node is only to the level they may be generalized based on the initial project in formation and budget. The main goal of decomposition is to allow fo r an alternative by alternative analysis based on the owner design program preferences, existing standards, and design and construction first costs. Current reviews of cost tend to lump a ll services and construction costs into one overall percentage increase which leaves newcomers to more sustainable design without the necessary detailed information to make a sound decision. One point to note that is difficult to gleam from the initial review is the synerg ies associated with alternativ e selection. The model will note alternatives that have impact s across criteria, synergistic alternatives, to allow for more comprehensive model output other than simple cost. The SRP model is based on cost judgments of th e user. The simplicity of this model, and power, is that each user may assign and alter the weights and costs for each alternative. This

PAGE 89

89 increases the accuracy based on decision makers insi ghts local standards and regional concerns. Key points are that the overall design tree is ba sed on (1) cost parameters assigned by decision makers, (2) preference parameters ranked by the decision makers, and (3) cost and preference parameters that have both cost values and pref erences. The associated R for requirement, P for preference, and C for cost allow for the sp litting of the parameter tree into a Preference Analysis Tree and Cost Analysis Tree using two different models. The P for preference node consists of any combination of the followi ng descriptors: S fo r social, Env for environmental, E for building or project effici encies or performance, and H for occupant health and performance. These initial identifiers are based on regional ap plication and analysis developed by Eijadi et al (Eijadi Vaidya et al. 2002). Impact criteria were expanded to account for tenant health and social re levance. Exemplary alternatives and alternatives falling under Innovation and Design were not cons idered for the SRP tree. Preference Analysis Model Owners and facility decision makers will have their own set of ideas, goals, and perceived benefits tied to sustainable design. The preferen ce analysis allows for the LEED alternatives to be evaluated based on beneficial impacts and how these impacts meet the goals or preference of decision makers. As stated previously, the purpos e is to provide structure and means to evaluate alternatives beyond si mple initial cost. Multi-attribute Decision Analysis (MADA) Given the varied nature of the LEED alternatives it was decided to use an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach to evaluate the impacts or outcomes for each alternative. Falling under the multi-attribute decision analysis (MADA) categor y of decision making models (Norris and Marshall 1995), AHP provides methods to evaluate an alternative based on its relative importance to all other alternatives. Originally developed by Saat y (Saaty 1982) in the

PAGE 90

90 early 1980s AHP methodology has been used extensivel y to evaluate data that contains a mix of quantitative, non-financial characteristics that ta ke judgment to monetize, and qualitative impacts that may be impossible or impractical to quantify such as aesthetics or values. AHP formalizes the process of making pa irwise comparisons. The seminal work describing how MADA technique s may be used in the building industry to evaluate various decision processes was put together by Norris and Marshall in 1995 for National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) titled Multi attribute Decision Analysis Method for Evaluating Buildings and Buildings Systems (Norris and Marshall 1995). MADA problems are best suited for a situation involving a finite number of alternatives, in this case LEED alternatives, measured by two or more releva nt attributes, which in this case is their respective potential performance, environment, social, and health impacts. Other classic elements of MADA problems define a predetermined set of options to be evaluated, tradeoffs among attributes, incommensurable units of measure, and the ability to rep licate the problem in a decision matrix noting the same alternatives running down as well as across the top of the matrix. All of these traits are applicable to the problem facing a decision maker involved in evaluating LEED alternatives. It is important to note that MADA type deci sions do not seek to qua ntify certainties and precision like other statistical means of evalua tion. Rather MADA neglects both uncertainty and imprecision due to the inherent nature of the types of decisions being made (i.e., good versus bad). AHP does employ various strategies to check for consistency among judgments by comparing final rankings with either a geometric means meth od or calculating a consistency index where applicable (n less than 15) (Saaty 1982). AHP is applicable for rating, screening,

PAGE 91

91 and ranking alternatives thus its inclusion in this model. Figure 3-7 illustrates a decision process regarding LEED alternatives and impacts th at may be important for a decision maker. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Detail As noted previously the AHP process is one that allows for a systematic means to evaluate pairwise comparisons as they relate to certain ov erriding attributes or imp acts. For this decision model Saatys classic intensity of importance scale was utilized(Saaty 1982). Table 3-2 provides an explanation of the pairwise comparison scale incorporated. The basic process for determining the end resu lting ranking of alternatives is as follows: Determine the relevant attributes in this ca se building performance, environment, health, and social impacts Determine set of alternatives in this case LEED-NC 2.2 Scorecard Develop matrices for each attribute Calculate eigenvalues (relative ra nking) values using AHP processes Perform a consistency check Apply attribute weighting values (AWV) Produce preference ranking output Relevant attributes to be considered are bui lding performance, environment, social, and tenant health impacts. The alternatives were rated based on the following judgments: Building Performance How does alternative i compare to alternative j based on providing a higher performing building compared to tr aditional methods or standards? Energy savings and water conservation measures were affirmed. The general impact assessment which influenced judging was as foll ows (listed in order of importance): o Energy savings o Water conservation Environment How does alternative i compar e to alternative j based on beneficial environmental impacts, both long-term and short-term? The general impact assessment which influenced judging was as foll ows (listed in order of importance): o Emissions/Energy savings

PAGE 92

92 o Water conservation o Heat island o Waste reduction o Site selection (one time impact) o Material conservation/practices (one time impact) Social How does alternative i compare to alte rnative j based on shortterm social benefits of neighboring residents? This may include aesthetic benefits as well as immediate economic benefits such as employment or ac cess. For purposes of this study, long-term benefits of sustainable practices (i.e., tax savings from not building additional infrastructure) were not addressed. For applying a judgment economic impacts were judged slightly more in favor of aesthetic impacts. Health How does alternative i compare to alternative j based on the health and well being of building occupants? The general impact s assessment which influenced judging was as follows (listed in order of importance): o Air Quality o Lighting o Thermal comfort The LEED alternatives were judged using th e pairwise comparison scale noted in Table 3-2. It is important to note that duri ng the scaling phase the LEED alternatives were looked at independently. For example, although Indoor and Envi ronmental Quality Alternative 8.1: Daylight and Views is typically linked w ith energy savings and thereby also having an environmental benefit, it was not considered an environmental benefit because there is no direct environmental benefit of daylighting per se. The intensity of importance scores are applied in a matrix of paired comparisons (MPC). The MPC is the tool that captures the decision makers input with rega rd to the relative importance of the model criteria based on the ove rriding attribute. This model developed four initial MPCs focusing on performance, environment, occupant health, and social impacts as the overriding attributes. For example, if energy sa vings is the overriding attribute than the LEED alternative is compared to each other with regard to their role or impact in energy savings. A score is placed in the matrix with importance of the attribute running down the matrix always

PAGE 93

93 compared to the attribute running across the top of the matrix. A key concept with regard to scoring a matrix is that of reciprocals. For the matrix to be consistent it is given that for any importance score for an x attribute relative to a y attribute the reciprocal sc ore must be applied to the y attribute relative to the x attr ibute. A simple way for think of this concept is that if attribute x is twice as important that attr ibute y, then conversely attribute y must be half as important as attribute x. Another way to view the scaling system in a pairwise matrix is to consider a rating scale progressing from 1/9th to 9 in relative importance from lowest order of affirmation to highest order of affirmation Like comparisons of attributes diagonally across and down a matrix earn the value of 1 since attributes must have equal importance to themselves. The bene fit of the concept of reciprocals is that the matrix may be set up in a software package in such a way that only the top or bottom have of the matrix needs to be filled out. The DMASC model was developed by the author using Microsoft Excel. Once the matrix is complete it is processed to determine the principal vector or eiganvalue which is a score that normalizes individual compar isons by the column total (sum equals to one), then sums the normalized individual scores into row totals to dete rmine the final priority weight or ranking of alternatives. A consistency index ma y be used for matrices with n less than fifteen (Saaty 1982). For my study an alternative cons istency check method usi ng the geometric mean of the normalized row totals was incorporated to check eigenvalues. AHP is a powerful to organize intuitions, preferences, and logic into a formal decision process (Crowe and Noble 1998). The matrices provided a mathematical means to identify the criteria impacts for each alternative. The alternativ es represented the LEED altern atives listed on the LEED-NC 2.2

PAGE 94

94 scorecard. Since the alternatives were judged based on intent indi vidual credit options were not judged nor were any Innovation and Design alternatives, Prerequisites, or the LEED AP alternative. Innovation and Desi gn alternatives are project specific alternatives awarded for exemplary performance or innovation on a project by project case. Due to the relatively large initial size of the matrices (n=50), and to add precision and value to the final rankings, second-stage matrices of paired comparisons (MPC) were developed. These matrices took those alternatives that me t an impact threshold relative to the other alternatives based on the indivi dual matrix attributes. After the second evaluation was complete the number of alte rnatives identified under each performance category was determined to be as follows: Building Performance 15 LEED Alternatives (30%) Environment 39 LEED Alternatives (78%) Social 12 LEED Alternatives (24%) Health 18 LEED Alternatives (36%) The resulting baseline ranking scores supporte d the category identifications noted on the Sustainable Requirement and Parameter (SRP) Tree. This allowed for an applicable criteria score to be developed for each alternative. The process involved is summarized as follows: Based on the full-scale MPCs abbreviated MPCs were developed across all four criteria incorporating those LEED a lternatives meeting a mini mum threshold impact. The abbreviated MPC were re-evaluated following the same AHP processes. The subsequent LEED alternative preference ra nkings for the indivi dual criteria were normalized by dividing each alternative value by the highest ranking criteria value. An impact matrix was developed to sum the composite score for each LEED alternative. The composite scores where then ra nked in value descending order. The scores for each MPC were normalized by dividing the each preference ranking by the highest scoring preference ranking in that column. This provide d a basis to rank the scores on

PAGE 95

95 their relative impact to the scor ing criteria. An alternative com posite score was then tabulated by summing the normalized value across all four cr iteria. The ranking of normalized composite score demonstrates the overall balanced impact individual alternatives have across all four preference criteria relative to each ot her. This is unique to this m odel. The outcome at this stage of the model is a balanced score that evaluates alternatives across criteria, or perceived benefits, to determine a relative impact of LEED alternatives. Preference Weighting of LEED Alternatives Preference weighting of the LEED alternative normalized scores allows a decision maker to place importance on design outcomes. The traditional construction design follows a series of steps from programming through preconstruction. During these phases the design team sets goals to be achieved based on owner demands and feasibility constraints. The weighting of the balanced impact alternatives a llows for an owner to prioritize the LEED alternatives to meet program performance outcomes or expectations. Fo r example, if an owner is focused on having a LEED certified building that she may market as a healthier workplace co mpared to traditional design then it would be vital to include those alternatives that focus on health of occupants. Likewise, if an owner is more concerned with building performance, than the identified building performance alternatives should be emphasized ov er other non-performan ce alternatives during the initial phase of de sign. The weighting of the normali zed scores allows for the owners preference to influence the hierar chy of alternative rankings. Preference weights across the four outcome cr iteria are applied to the initial balanced weights to provide for a weighted ranking for each alternative. Pr eference weights are applied as percentages summing to one across the four criteria. Weights ma y be applied evenly across all criteria whereby the initial composite rankings would not change (i.e., 25% applied to each criteria), or weighted to reflect the owners preference for outcome. The process result is a

PAGE 96

96 ranked list of alternatives that takes into account alternative impact, as it relates to outcome, as well as the decision makers program goals. At this point the project team evaluates the alternatives and assigns each alternat ive one of the following identifiers: Required or building standard (no additional cost to LEED project) Essential Optional Non-applicable The process allows for the alternatives to be ev aluated along side their relative ranking. This provides a context for credit evaluation. Cost Analysis Model The cost analysis model is designed to assist project teams at the initial, or program, phase of a project. The goal of the process is to pr ovide conceptual estimates to allow for relative comparisons of LEED alternative costs. Conceptual estimates at the program level are traditionally based on the past experience of the project team and the type or classification of a building. Th ese numbers typically are linked to the size of a project in terms of gross square footage (gsf), the project location, and the project function or complexity. The more difficult or complex a project te nds to be reflected in a higher gsf construction cost compared to a similar less complex project. Since project elements, such as foundation work or exterior wall co nstruction costs, tend cost the sa me in terms of percentage of construction budget across similar f unctions and design criteria it is common to conceptually estimate a project based percenta ges of the overall or construc tion budget. For example it is common to estimate site work and substructure for a typical office building at between 3.5% and 5% of the total construction budget.

PAGE 97

97 Costing Assumptions and Limitations The USGBC allows for LEED credit cost estimate s to be determined as percentages of a projects construction budget. For example the baseline estima te for material costs is determined by taking a projects entire contract value for CSI divisions one through 10 and multiplying this value by 45 percent. My study fo llowed this same type of logic in estimating costs wherever possible. Table 3-3 contains a sample breakdown of the first steps in a conceptual estimate. The percentages would be applied to the construction budget for a typi cal two story college student union. Costing alternatives were applied with the following limitations and assumptions: Prerequisites are considered no cost as the adoption of th ese standards was accounted for during the decision to change phase. Regardless, where data was readily available cost estimates are provided. The purpose of the costing was to reflect the increase cost of the LEED process over traditional methods. The numbers reflect th e delta between traditional costs and LEED requirements. Whenever possible gross square footage a nd overall construction budget was used for the basis of estimating cost. In addition to project budget and gsf inform ation the following alternative specific data was required as input: o Peak building users o Number of Full-time Employees o Total number of parking spaces o Number of Acres restored or protected o Total square footag e of roof area o Project build schedule in months o Wood material cost as a percen tage of total material cost o Low-e wood material cost as a percen tage of total w ood material cost o Whether or not LEED processing and LEED AP duties would be handled inhouse (no additional cost). o Whether or not the architects fee sche dule was adjusted for LEED projects (is there additional line item costs for LEED projects?).

PAGE 98

98 Alternative options applying to residentia l construction or building reuse were not considered. The following alternatives requi red project specific informa tion that was impossible to conceptually estimate and or were not applicable to projects on the University of Florida campus. These alternatives require user input on a project specific basis. o Sustainable Site Alternative 6.1 Option 1 and Sustainable Site Alternative 6.2 requiring cost estimates for storm water qua ntity thresholds compared to existing site. Not applicable for projects at UF. o Sustainable Site Alternative 7.1 Option 2 require 50% of parking to be covered. This is not applicable to projects at UF. o Water Efficiency Alternative 2.2 requires treating 50% of wastewater to be treated onsite to tertiary standards. This is not applicable to projects at UF. The model does not consider cost synergies among alternatives. For example a building that pursues five or more Optimization En ergy Performance alternatives may under the same design concept and cost qualify for Thermal Comfort alternatives. It is left up to the user to re-assign these types of additional benefit alternativ es as standards or no cost. Conceptual estimates are multiplied by plus or mi nus 25% to allow cost variations such as inflation, regional differences or material selection. The individual cost sheets provide the ability to change applied pe rcentage or material costs as they relate to specific projects. Cost Preference Analysis It is at this point that the information from the preference analysis model and cost analysis model are combined for an examination of alte rnative impacts or best fit. The preference analysis provides a context by which the costs ma y be examined as they relate to the owners outcome goals. Initial prefer ence identifiers and weighted ra nkings appear along side cost estimates for each alternative. Since the intent of the alternative is what was evaluated each option is given the same preference weight as its parent alternativ e. Each credit is then reevaluated based on initial preferen ce identifiers, cost, and ranking. Alternative identifiers (i.e., Standard, Essential, Optional, and Non-applicable) may be revised at this point. This step is unique to the DMASC model.

PAGE 99

99 Ranking of Competitive Systems After the re-evaluation of alternatives ranking of alternatives may take place. Alternatives may be sorted by anyone of the following processes: Sort by order of alternative identifiers and rankings Standard, Essential, Optional, and Non-applicable. In this case the Opti onal credits would be sorted by ranking. Sort by order of alternative identifiers, ranki ngs, and cost Standard, Essential, Optional, and Non-applicable. In this case those alte rnatives noted as Opti onal would be ranked by their ascending cost. Sort by ascending alternative cost. This ranking completes the LSP portion of the d ecision model. The next step involves final decisions and progress towards creating a more sustainable construction standard. Decision The decision phase of the DMASC model a llows for the owner and project team to evaluate the final selection of a lternatives to be pursued that be st fit their outcome goals, budget constraints, and desired LEED certif ication level (i.e., Certified, S ilver, Gold, or Platinum). One of the unique aspects of the LEED process is the fact the registra tion and certification cost is not linked to certifica tion level being applied for by the Owner. On one level this means there is no extra cost burden from the USGBC th at influences certification level sought. On another level the effort involved in the certification process from an alternative submittal process increases as the number of alternativ es sought by the Owner increases. The decision phase involves an examination of the ranking of altern atives and the final evaluation of alternative identifier s. At this point any optional al ternatives should be assigned to one of the three remaining alternative identifier s (i.e., Standard, Essential, or Non-applicable) and a final certification level should be decide d upon. Each alternativ e should be assigned an alternative champion responsible for successfully ensuring the LEED alternative is achieved and

PAGE 100

100 submitted for approval. The cost module provides a conceptual range of cost impacts and the preference evaluation module compar es the final alterna tives to the owners original weighted preference rankings. Transition to More Sustainable Methods As more buildings are completed and the owne r and project teams in crease their exposure to the LEED process a natural trend may develop as to which alternatives are best suited for the evolving building program. The University of Florida developed a system of alternative recommendations to aid projec t teams during the conceptual levels. Those recommended alternatives that appeared consistently across projects have now become linked to the overall campus building standards. As such these altern atives are now considered no cost compared to non-LEED buildings. Sustainable Building Practices in Operation At the point most, if not all, of the LEED a lternatives that apply to a building program are intertwined in the building program the need fo r LEED certification from an impact perspective is minimal The impacts, costs, and design re sults of each LEED building would now compared to proposed and existing building stock. The more sustainable methods adopted into the building program standard becomes the new current building method and the program evaluation stage is set to begin again.

PAGE 101

101 Figure 3-1. Decision model for assessment of sustainable construction (DMASC)

PAGE 102

102 Figure 3-2. Green education conduit s among constructi on participants

PAGE 103

103 Figure 3-3. Traditional li near design approach Figure 3-4. Sustainable inte grated design approach

PAGE 104

104 Figure 3-5. Logical scori ng of preferences method Figure 3-6. LEED sustainable require ments and parameter (SRP) tree

PAGE 105

105 Figure 3-7. An example hierarchy for the proble m of selecting the be st LEED alternatives Objective: Select Best Fit LEED Alternative Environment Impacts Building Performance Impacts Health Impacts Social Impacts First Cost Impacts

PAGE 106

106 Table 3-1. Sample existing system gl obal performance evaluation checklist Factor Description Evaluation (Y/N) Environmental Does current delivery method address limiting negative impacts of construction on building site and associated area? Yes or No Social Does current delivery method address social context of construction, including but not limited to employee access and local economic impact of building location? Yes or No Energy and water Does current delivery method address potential cost savings of energy and water modeling or optimization? Yes or No Health and productivity Does current delivery method address best method of systems installation, worker health during installation, short and long-term effects of product offgassing, and tenant worker conditions regarding daylighti ng and temperature and light controls? Yes or No Project delivery methods Does current delivery method address contractor responsibility with regard to waste-management; recycle content and environmental impact of building products, and indoor environmental quality at time of turnover? Yes or No Design Costs Does current delivery method provide an evaluation, in terms of score or grade, of how well the final design has met the overall program intent? Yes or No

PAGE 107

107 Table 3-2. The pairwise comparison scale Intensity Scale Definition Explanation 1 Equal importance of both elements Two elements contribute equally to the property 3 Weak importance of one element over another Experience and judgment slightly favor one element over another 5 Essential or strong importance of one element over another Experience and judgment strongly favor one element over another 7 Demonstrated importance of one element over another An element is strongly favored and its dominance is demonstrated in practice 9 Absolute importance of one element over another The evidence favoring one element over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation. 2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values between two adjacent judgments Compromise is needed between two judgments Reciprocals If activity i has one of the preceding numbers assigned to it when compared with activity j the j has the reciprocal value when compared to i

PAGE 108

108 Table 3-3. Sample applied construction cost percentages for college student union Remaining contract budget after fees: Substructure: 5.40% Shell Superstructure: 18.40% Exterior Enclosure: 12.70% Roofing: 2.40% Interiors Typical Finishes: 21.50% Gypsum on metal stud Cast-in-place stairs 50% Carpet/50% VCT Services Elevators: 2.60% Plumbing: 2.40% HVAC: 18.10% Fire Protection: 2.00% Electrical: 14.50% Equipment and Furnishings: 0.00% Special Construction: 0.00% Total: 100.00%

PAGE 109

109 CHAPTER 4 DECISION MODEL FUNCTIONS Introduction This chapter focuses on the use of the Logical Scoring of Pref erence (LSP) methodology and the final decision phases of choosing LEED credits and project certifica tion level. The data presented provides details regarding the proces ses involved in evalua ting and selecting LEED alternatives. Preference Analysis Model Preference weights allow for emphasis placement alternatives as they relate to project outcomes. Ranking LEED alternatives based on outcome criteria allows project team members to evaluate credits in a hierarchical fashion as they relate to certification levels. Normalized data from the outcome specific AHP MC tabl es is presented in Figure 4-1. To measure the effect of pr eference weighting an outcome analysis was performed by certification level. For this analysis each alte rnative with an impact score was assigned a value of one. This allowed for the summation imp acts by certification level as preference weights were applied. To recap from Chapter 3, the total number of impacts is outlined in Table 4-1. An analysis was conducted by varying the out come preferences and summing the ranked alternatives impacts across preference or outcome cr iteria. For this analysis two input constraints were applied: four credits as signed to EA Credit 1 Energy Optimization (EA Credit 1) and one credit assigned EA Credit 2 Onsite Renewable Energy. Several LEED credits had impact scores across th ree out of four of th e preference criteria (9 out of 50). Figure 4-2 provides a snapshot of the LEED alternatives with synergy scores totaling three. This credits had a criteria synerg y value of three. Others had impacts across two criteria (16 out of 50), and the several, mostly falling evenly between the environment and health

PAGE 110

110 criteria, scored only one criteria (25 out of 50). No alternativ e had a synergy score of four. Preference weights are on the Pr eference Impact Sheet (PIS) as noted in Figure 4-3. For balanced weights the user may enter 25% for each criterion. Table 4-2 illustrates the balan ced (evenly weighted) distributi on of alternatives across the four evaluation criteria by certification level. Th is table illustrates the a lternatives impacts across criteria based on a balanced preference impact weight. Table 4-3 illustrates a performance weighted distribution of credits across the four evaluation criteria by certification level. The al ternatives are weighted 70% Performance, 10% Environment, 10% Social, and 10% Health. Evenly criteria sum in parenthesis next to weighted criteria total. Table 4-4 illustrates an envi ronment weighted distribution of credits across the four evaluation criteria by certification level. The al ternatives are weighted 10% Performance, 70% Environment, 10% Social, and 10% Health. Evenly criteria sum in parenthesis next to weighted criteria total. Table 4-5 illustrates a social weighted distribution of cred its across the four evaluation criteria by certification level. The altern atives are weighted 10% Performance, 10% Environment, 70% Social, and 10% Health. Evenly criteria sum in parenthesis next to weighted criteria total. Table 4-6 illustrates a health weighted dist ribution of credits acro ss the four evaluation criteria by certification level. The altern atives are weighted 10% Performance, 10% Environment, 10% Social, and 70% Health. Evenly criteria sum in parenthesis next to weighted criteria total.

PAGE 111

111 Due to the synergies of credits receiving im pact ratings across multiple criteria it is expected to see a limited fluctuat ion of credits at the certification level. The greatest changes occur across the Silver and Gold certification levels. Those credits that receive multiple impacts tend to fall within the top 20 credits regardless of weighting. Recall nine alternatives received contributions from three criteria. The added value of this process is the final alternatives are ranked so that a project team may prioritize the sel ection of alternatives. This analysis allows a project team to evaluate their collection of credits to determin e, as a whole, whether or not they are meeting the Owners preferences for certifi cation outcomes. It also allows a cross comparison of any number of buildings across cer tification levels to compare their respective impacts. This is unique to this model. After preference weights are applied, the owner would then evaluate each alternative in the context of their synergies and ranking. Figure 4-4 illustrates how the owner would select one of four options to apply to each al ternative: Standard (no additiona l cost compared to traditional requirements), Essential, Optional, and Non-applicable (NA) for ev enly weighted alternatives. Figure 4-5 displays a portion of the selecti on table for LEED alternatives with a 70% Performance weighting. Remaini ng criteria are assigned 10% ea ch. Figure 4-6 displays the selection table for LEED alternat ives with a 70% Environment we ighting. Remaining criteria are assigned 10% each. Figure 4-7 displays a portion of the selection table for LEED alternatives with a 70% Social weighting. Remaining criteria ar e assigned 10% each. Figure 4-8 displays the selection table fo r LEED alternatives with a 70% Health weighting. Remaining criteria are assigned 10% each.

PAGE 112

112 The LEED alternatives would be given preference identifiers with regard to synergies associated with alternatives, weighted ranking, and project fit. The owner or project team then moves to costing individual LEED credits. Cost Analysis Model In order to perform initial costing of credits project specific information was entered on two data request sheets. The first sheet asks for build team information, job budget information, and project gross square footag e as shown in Figure 4-9. Th e second data sheet requests information specific to LEED credits as outlined in Figure 4-10. Ce lls highlighted in white were input by the user. After project data and LEED specific data was entered the Scorecard Sheet was accessed. This sheet has links to each credit takeoff sheet (c redit is highlighted in blue) and allows for the notation of credit status accord ing to current university standard s. Three options are given: standard (no additional cost comp ared to standard construction), required (all prerequisites are hard coded required), and not-applic able. These identifiers do not influence criteria preferences and are solely to aid anyone filling out the scorecard with regard to costs. Credit or point conceptual estimates of LEED alternatives were conducted. In My study those credits, including each credit option and exemplary credits, falli ng within the realm of possibility for University of Florida campus pr ojects were estimated for cost. Conceptual estimates were conducted based on very broad terms such as total project budget, total construction budget, and gross square footage ar ea. Figure 4-11 provides a snapshot of the LEED scorecard developed. Each sheet is linked to th is scorecard for ease of calculations. It is important to note that costs are based on the existing building standards and local market conditions. The only information passed through to the preference and cost analyses are the low and high cost ranges (takeoff plus and minus 25% of estimate). Figure 4-12 provides a sample

PAGE 113

113 Cost/Takeoff Sheet for LEED Credits. Sustai nable Credit 4.3 Option1 entails providing lowemitting and fuel efficient vehicles for 3% of the full-time equivalent (FTE) occupants. The takeoff sheet provides the calculation for the numbe r of vehicles needed to meet credit and cost premium for each vehicle. UF incorporates the us e of electric vehicles that plug into standard outlets and as such considers this a no-cost credit This worksheet provides a lump-sum cost for training staff with regard to re-c harging and operation of vehicles. UF does not consider the cost of the vehicles as construction costs and does not apply costs to the total project budget. As noted on the sheet the GSA study allows for costs associated with vehicl es specific recharging and the IHS study includes the cost of ve hicles to the proj ect and credit. The scorecard accounts for 106 requirement and credit option takeoff sheets and two sheets accounting for registration and soft-costs for a total of 108 conceptual estimates. The cost analysis is designed to allow for takeoffs for each project based on existing standards. The unique part of this method is the ability for proj ect teams to estimate each credit from project to project. The resulting data would be used to track trends and utility of credits over time. Cost Preference Analysis The cost preference analysis provides for side-by-side comparison of previously established preferences of ranked credits, low and high conceptual cost estimates, and a final or revised determination of credit preference (i.e., standard, essential, optional, or non-applicable). The cost preference sheet allows for a team to evaluate credits w ith outcome weighted preferences as guide for prioritizi ng credit selection. This is uni que to this model. Figure 4-13 contains the information used in the revising of preferences. This cost preferences process is the key to this model. It allows for the identification of preferences prior to costing, cos ting of each credit at a conceptual level, and a reconsideration phase that allows the design team to c onsider preferences, impacts, and costs.

PAGE 114

114 Ranking of Competitive Systems Ranking of competitive systems is done through the analysis of revised credit identifiers. Costs are summed and categorized by correspondi ng individual LEED credit identifiers. Figure 4-14 contains the Cost-Preference Summary output. Summary sheet data is linked to costs and final credit identifiers. Should a team make changes to any of the individual LEED credit takeoff sheets or reassign credit identifiers thos e changes would automatically be reflected on the summary sheet. Decision (Selection of Best Alternative) The selection of best alternative is that whic h matches cost, preference s to outcome criteria and certification level. The DMASC approach allows the project team to develop various scenarios at the conceptual level to address su ch constraints as owne r preferences and limited budgets. Transition to More Sustainable Practices (Trend Analysis) The collection of preference, cost, and credit selection allows for a systematic way to address making changes to building standards that incorporate LEED goals. The University of Florida Facilities Planning Divi sion has informally adopted those standards they deem consistently no-cost from project to project.

PAGE 115

115 Figure 4-1. LEED alternatives composite score and ranking

PAGE 116

116 Figure 4-2. LEED alternatives w ith synergistic sums across three out of four outcomes LEED-NC 2.2 Pairwise comparison LEED Credit Normalized Composite Impact Scores Enter % for Preference Impacts (sum = 1) Building Performance: 25% Environment: 25% Social: 25% Health: 25% Sum: 1.0 Figure 4-3. Preference impact weights

PAGE 117

117 Figure 4-4 Initial ranked evalua tions of alternatives for evenly weighted alternatives

PAGE 118

118 Figure 4-5 Initial ranked eval uations for 70% performan ce weighted alternatives

PAGE 119

119 Figure 4-6 Initial ranked eval uations for 70% environmen t weighted alternatives

PAGE 120

120 Figure 4-7 Initial ranked ev aluations for 70% social weighted alternatives

PAGE 121

121 Figure 4-8 Initial ranked ev aluations for 70% health weighted alternatives

PAGE 122

122 Figure 4-9 Project data sheet

PAGE 123

123 Figure 4-10. Projec t/LEED specific data.

PAGE 124

124 Figure 4-11. LEED scorecard costing

PAGE 125

125 Figure 4-12. Sample LEED credit cost summary/take-off

PAGE 126

126 Figure 4-13. Cost preference analysis

PAGE 127

127 Figure 4-14. DMASC cost-preference summary sheet

PAGE 128

128 Table 4-1. LEED alternatives preference outcomes Preference Outcome Number of LEED alte rnatives with associated outcomes Performance 15 Environment 39 Social 12 Health 18 Table 4-2. Balanced LEED altern atives (Evenly Distributed) LEED Certification Levels Outcome Criteria Certified Silver Gold Platinum Building Performance 14 15 15 15 Environment 23 28 32 39 Social 5 9 11 11 Health 9 10 11 17 Table 4-3. Performance weighted LEED alternatives LEED Certification Levels Outcome Criteria Certified Silver Gold Platinum Building Performance 15 (14) 15 (15) 15 (15) 15 (15) Environment 23 (23) 28 (28) 32 (32) 39 (39) Social 4 (5) 9 (9) 11 (11) 11 (11) Health 9 (9) 10 (10) 11 (11) 17 (17)

PAGE 129

129 Table 4-4. Environment weighted LEED alternatives LEED Certification Levels Outcome Criteria Certified Silver Gold Platinum Building Performance 14 (14) 15 (15) 15 (15) 15 (15) Environment 23 (23) 30 (28) 36 (32) 39 (39) Social 3 (5) 9 (9) 9 (11) 12 (11) Health 9 (9) 9 (10) 9 (11) 17 (17) Table 4-5. Social weighted LEED alternatives LEED Certification Levels Outcome Criteria Certified Silver Gold Platinum Building Performance 11 (14) 14 (15) 15 (15) 15 (15) Environment 21 (23) 28 (28) 32 (32) 39 (39) Social 12 (5) 12 (9) 12 (11) 12 (11) Health 9 (9) 9 (10) 11 (11) 17 (17)

PAGE 130

130 Table 4-6. Health weighted LEED alternatives LEED Certification Levels Outcome Criteria Certified Silver Gold Platinum Building Performance 14 (14) 14 (15) 15 (15) 15 (15) Environment 20 (23) 21 (28) 27 (32) 38 (39) Social 3 (5) 4 (9) 8 (11) 12 (11) Health 12 (9) 18 (10) 18 (11) 18 (17)

PAGE 131

131 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Model Summary The Decision Model Assessment for Sustainabl e Construction (DMASC) is an insightful and systematic way to evaluate current buildi ng standards and LEED alte rnatives from both a preference outcome perspective as well as from a project budget perspective. The model addresses the short-comings in previous studies that seek to determine or apply a universal percentage across all projects regardless of type of project, local context for standards, or owners objectives for green design. UFs No-Cost LEED Certification As of the spring of 2007 the University of Fl oridas Facility and Pl anning Division (FPD) has raised its internal project LEED certification goal from certifie d to silver or from a minimum of 26 LEED points to 33 LEED points. This is decision is prompted by their understanding that LEED certified (26 points) is now achieved via no additional project costs. The DMASC model demonstrates this by identifying all credits UF considers standard as Standard and identifying all remaining credits as Non-Applicable on th e Cost Preference Analysis Sheet. Figure 5.1 displays sample output for UFs standard LEED credits totaling 26 points which is the minimum needed for a base LEED certified rating and seve n additional credits selected based on lowest cost to arrive at a total of 33 credits or the minimum LEED silver certification. UF notes required credits and standard credits as constr uction alternatives that would be required or pursued regardless of seeking a LEED certification. As such the facilities and planning staff do not consider them additional costs. The analysis of UFs standard only selected credits illustrates the impact of adopting LEED principles within current building standards when determining the overall cost impact.

PAGE 132

132 The Requirement Costs noted in Table 5.1 cons ist of energy modeling and fundamental and enhanced commissioning. The majority of the Standard Costs estimate for waste diversion which had a cost range of $112 thousand to $187 t housand and Design soft costs that had a range of $63 thousand to almost $105 thousand. Both these costs are considered no additional costs at UF. Construct waste diversion is considered a no cost by contractors, partly because of the recycled value of sorted materials although there is no hard data to support this assumption. Design fees are not considered for two main cont ributing reasons: 1) UF requires the design team to have completed a minimum of two LEED project s, and 2) UFs design fee is based on curve that accounts for square footage and complexity of the job. No additional fees are allotted for LEED design. Table 5-1 breaks the cost data obtained from the DMASC Summary Sheet, noted in Figure 5.1, into percentages of costs base d on certification levels and total associated costs and adjusted costs which are those costs less the required and standard costs. UFs process for selecting LEED credits, as outlined in Chapter 2, involves the initial review of no-cost or standard credits as they apply to a project and then th e evaluation of moderately cost credits, and then compares th e results of both proce sses with required and optional certification levels. What this process is lacking is an analysis of user group desired outcomes. Sample Output by Preference for Identical Project Data Input The model was run to demonstrate how credit preference and credit selection influence overall cost impacts for a project across certificat ion levels. Project da ta input (i.e. project budget, construction budget, gross square footage, and LEED specific inputs). Two scenarios were run with regard to preference and costing credits. First scenario, the UF Outcome scenario, assigned identifiers consistent with UFs building program used in the no-cost

PAGE 133

133 scenario above but optional identifiers were applie d to credits that may be achieved on projects. The second scenario was a high and low cost scenario with all identif iers options open to consideration. This high-low scenario assumed there were no existing standards. UF Based Preference-Cost Analysis For UF based scenarios the model was run w ith the following preference weights assigned. Evenly weighted (25% across all criteria) Performance 70% weighted (10% across remaining criteria) Environment 70% weighted (10% across remaining criteria) Social 70% weighted (10% across remaining criteria) Health 70% weighted (10% across remaining criteria) For each of the UF scenarios credits other th an standard and non-applicable were assigned identifiers based on the following restrictions: Based on credit preference rankings the fi rst credits summing to 26 were assigned Essential. Based on preference rankings the remaining cr edits were assigned Optional until 33 points, LEED Silver rating, was achieved. Credits not incorporated in the initial 33 credit total were assigned non-applicable. When given a choice between two options the lowest cost option was selected. Table 5-2 provides a summation of costs across all five preference weights. High-Low Cost Analysis The High-Low scenario involved disregardi ng UFs standards and solely identifying credits ranked by cost. Four constr aints applied to this analysis. First, four credits were assigned to Optimize Energy Performance at no cost. Second, the previously defined non-applicable alternatives on campus still applied (i.e., onsite waste treatment). Third, LEED AP costs were noted as standard. Fourth, as in previous analyses LEED registration costs were considered essential as in they would be necessary additional costs to pu rse a LEED certification. For the

PAGE 134

134 low-cost scenario credits were fi rst ranked by low-cost estimate. For credits with more than one option the selection of the first low-cost option obviously forced the remaining options to nonapplicable status. The high-co st scenario held the same nonapplicable constraints however Optimize Energy Performance was assigned ten cred its and associated costs applied. Data was sorted by cost as a primary condition and even ly weighted ranking as a secondary condition. The credits were identified as essential for a ce rtified rating and optional for a silver rating and remaining credits were assigned non-applicable id entifiers. The key difference between the low cost analysis in this scenario a nd the UF Standard and low-cost estimate noted above is that this low cost analysis solely based on cost. The pr evious UF example was first selected based on standards which may or may not have had an embedded cost. Table 5-3 contains the cost information associ ated with both low and high cost evaluations. For the low-cost scenario the seven credits select ed to move from a certified to silver rating had minimal cost impacts. Same is true for seven credits associated with the high-cost scenario. Figure 5-2 shows the top lowest-cost credit s sorted by lowest cost and then evenly weighted ranking. Figure 5-3 shows the top hig hest-cost credits sort ed by highest cost and then evenly weighted ranking. The insightful aspect of this model is th e ability for design teams to simultaneously evaluate outcome impacts, preference ranking, and cost on the same sheet. It allows for discussions regarding design and LEED credits to move from simply point shopping for the lowest credit to issues centering on applicabil ity for the overall project program. A unique byproduct of this process is the ab ility to perform impact profiles for projects based on the LEED alternatives selected. Outcome impact tall ies are a means for providing such insights.

PAGE 135

135 Outcome Impacts Outcome data was summarized to determine th e impacts of preference ratings as well as cost across the sustainable impact criteria. Ta ble 5-4 provides a snaps hot of outcome impacts across all criteria based on pref erence weights at the LEED Silv er certification level for an identical project. Case Study Sample data from a LEED certified medical center on the University of Florida (UF) campus was used to illustrate th e processes associated with the DMASC model. Sample project specific data was entered into the model as note d in Figures 5-4 and 55. Two analyses were then conducted using this baseline case data. The first represents credit preference weighting health identifiers at 70 percent and performance, environment, and social identifiers at 10 percent each. The cost summary noted in Figure 5-6 illu strates the costs associated with achieving a LEED certified building by selecti ng the highest ranked 26 credits. The second analysis, as noted in Figure 5-7, reflects credits chosen for an actual LEED-NC 2.1 certified medical center on the UF campus. The results are powerful in two ways. First the results demonstrate how current building standards and credit selection influence cost estim ates. The health weighted analysis indicated an adjusted cost increase betw een 2.15% and 3.58%. The sample scorecard data presents an adjusted cost increase of 0.03% and 0.05% over a traditionally designed building on UFs campus. This outcome is somewhat predictable based on UFs LEED review process that places an emphasis on low-cost or standard-cost LEED cred its. Secondly the results illustrate the role credit selection has on building outcome criteria. The health weighted st udy incorporates those credits which ranked highest on overall composite scor e. These credits reflect a greater or equal influence on outcome criteria across all four ca tegories. Noticeably building performance rated

PAGE 136

136 11 out of a possible 15 outcome points for the hea lth weighted analysis, while the actual medical center scorecard data dem onstrated only four out of 15 possibl e points. Additionally the health weighted analysis tallied 15 out of 18 health outcome points while the sample card tallied nine out of 18 possible health outcome points. This case study demonstrates the value of the DM ASC for use at the conceptual stages of a project. Understanding the infl uence of building standards and credit selection are keys to determining both first cost s and building outcomes.

PAGE 137

137 Figure 5-1. UFs standard only LEED credit project

PAGE 138

138 Figure 5-2. Lowest cost credits for UF ranked by low-cost and weighted ranking.

PAGE 139

139 Figure 5-3. Highest cost cred its for UF ranked by low-co st and weighted ranking.

PAGE 140

140 Figure 5-4. Sample medical center project data input.

PAGE 141

141 Figure 5-5. Sample medical center LEED specific project data.

PAGE 142

142 Figure 5-6. Health weighted certif ied medical center case study.

PAGE 143

143 Figure 5-7. Sample certified medical center scorecard.

PAGE 144

144 Table 5-1. UF certified and silver standa rd and low cost credit breakdown by costs Table 5-2. Preference weights applie d to UF standards and options

PAGE 145

145 Table 5-3. Low and high cost conceptual estimates Table 5-4 Outcome impacts by preference weights with GSF cost ranges

PAGE 146

146 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS One key to advancing a topic or research fi eld is the ability to provide accurate and relevant information. Unclear or oversimplified information regarding LEED first costs continues to be a hurdle for expanded acceptance. It is difficult for experienced builders and designers to accept statements such as there is no-cost associated with method, material, and design changes that vary from tradition. The message sounds false to an audience that is stereotypically resistant to change. This model serves to explain the nuances of LEED design and how practitioners at the University of Florida have learned from their ex periences. The way in which owners and design teams approach a LEED project play s a significant role in which credits are selected and why. Should first costs be of concern it is rather simple to evaluate the credits based on costs. The uniqueness of this model is that a llows owners and project teams to evaluate credit tradeoffs both in terms of cost and building function. This model incorporated Analytical Hierarch ical Processes (AHP) as means to determine the LEED alternative impacts. The method of evaluating alternatives against themselves supported previous studies with regard to iden tifying outcome categories, but also went beyond previous studies with the ability to rank alternatives in terms of relative importance. These impacts scores where then summed to an overall composite score for each credit that provided a means for ranking credits across four broad sustainable bene fits: Building Performance, Environment, Social, and Occupant Health. By having the user se t preference weights for these four impact criteria the overal l alternative composite score was adjusted to reflect the users preferences. This enabled LEED alternatives to be ranked in terms of user impact preferences. This is unique to this model.

PAGE 147

147 In addition to the evaluation of alternativ es via impacts, each LEED credit option applicable to the UF building environment was conceptually estimated. These estimates were broad back of the envelope estimates that are the type typically performed at the programming stage of a project. The key to each of the estimates is the flexibility for which cost percentages are linked predominately to gross square footage or project budgets. In addition providing a cost sheet alone is useful in providing a like method to track costs across projects. A key focus for future studies would be to inco rporate this model prospectively as projects begin in the conceptual stage th rough final construction. Previous often sited studies have all been performed retrospectively or theoretically with little or no direct contact with the teams involved in forming the LEED strategy or trac king costs. Furthermore the model falls significantly short in capturing two relevant points. One is the lack of ability to capture cost synergies among credits. Energy optimization, da ylighting, and measurement and verifications are credits that are often used in conjunction. This model does not capture how the synergies among credits influences design or construction costs. Secondly, return-on-investment or payback, both in terms of hard and soft costs, is often given as a reason for pursuing green design. As energy costs and environmental sensitiv ity continue to trend upward in the state of Florida the issue of payback will become of greater interest.

PAGE 148

148 APPENDIX A LEED PROJECT CHECKLIST LEED project checklist (USGBC 2007): Sustainable sites 14 Points Prerequisite 1 Construction ac tivity pollution prevention Required Credit 1 Site selection 1 Credit 2 Development and community connectivity 1 Credit 3 Brownfield redevelopment 1 Credit 4.1 Alternative transporta tion, public transportation access 1 Credit 4.2 Alternative transpor tation, bicycle storage and changing rooms 1 Credit 4.3 Alternative transportation, alternative fuel refueling stations 1 Credit 4.4 Alternative transpor tation, parking capacity 1 Credit 5.1 Site development: protect or restore habitat 1 Credit 5.2 Site development: maximize open space 1 Credit 6.1 Stormwater design: quantity control 1 Credit 6.2 Stormwater design: quality control 1 Credit 7.1 Heat isla nd effect: non-roof 1 Credit 7.2 Heat isla nd effect: roof 1 Credit 8 Light pollution reduction 1 Water efficiency 5 Points Credit 1.1 Water efficient landscaping, reduce by 50% 1 Credit 1.2 Water efficient landscaping, no potable use or no irrigation 1 Credit 2 Innovative wast ewater technologies 1 Credit 3.1 Water use reduction, 20% reduction 1 Credit 3.2 Water use reduction, 30% reduction 1 Energy and atmosphere 17 Points Prerequisite 1 Fundamental build ing systems commi ssioning Required Prerequisite 2 Minimum en ergy performance Required Prerequisite 3 Fundamental re frigerant management Required Credit 1 Optimize energy performance 1-10 Credit 2.1 On-site renewable energy 1-3 Credit 3 Enhanced commissioning 1 Credit 4 Enhanced refrigerant management 1 Credit 5 Measurement and verification 1 Credit 6 Green power 1

PAGE 149

149 Materials and resources 13 Points Prerequisite 1 Storage and colle ction of recyclables Required Credit 1.1 Building reuse, maintain 75% of existing shell 1 Credit 1.2 Building reuse, maintain 100% of shell 1 Credit 1.3 Building reuse, maintain 100% shell and 50% non-shell1 Credit 2.1 Construction waste management, divert 50% 1 Credit 2.2 Construction waste management, divert 75% 1 Credit 3.1 Resource reuse, specify 5% 1 Credit 3.2 Resource reuse, specify 10% 1 Credit 4.1 Recycled content, specify 10% 1 Credit 4.2 Recycled content, specify 20% 1 Credit 5.1 Local/regional materials, 10% 1 Credit 5.2 Local/regional materials 20% 1 Credit 6 Rapidly renewable materials 1 Credit 7 Certified wood 1 Indoor environmental quality 15 Points Prerequisite 1 Minimum IAQ performance Required Prerequisite 2 Environmental tob acco smoke (ETS) control Required Credit 1 Outdoor air delivery monitoring 1 Credit 2 Increase ventilation 1 Credit 3.1 Construction I AQ management plan, during construction 1 Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ management plan, before occupancy 1 Credit 4.1 Low-emitting materials, adhesives and sealants 1 Credit 4.2 Low-emitting materials, paints 1 Credit 4.3 Low-emitting materials, carpet 1 Credit 4.4 Low-emitting materials, composite wood 1 Credit 5 Indoor chemical and pollutant source control 1 Credit 6.1 Controllability of systems: Lighting 1 Credit 6.2 Controllability of systems: Thermal Comfort 1 Credit 7.1 Thermal comfort design 1 Credit 7.2 Thermal comfort verification 1 Credit 8.1 Daylight and views, daylight 75% of spaces 1 Credit 8.2 Daylight and views, daylight 90% of spaces 1 Innovation and design process 5 Points Credit 1.1 Innovation in design: Specific title 1 Credit 1.2 Innovation in design: Specific title 1 Credit 1.3 Innovation in design: Specific title 1 Credit 1.4 Innovation in design: Specific title 1 Credit 2 LEED accredited professional 1

PAGE 150

150 Project Totals: Certified 26-32 Points Silver 33-38 Points Gold 39-51 Points Platinum 52-69 Points

PAGE 151

151 APPENDIX B LEED OVERVIEW Introduction The University of Florida (UF) is one of the countries leading institutions with regard to mandating LEED standards for campus wide construc tion projects. This appendix provides an overview of UFs sustainable building pract ices and costs associated with each LEED alternative. The data is based on University of Florida experience, a study conducted for the GSA, and a study conducted for the IHS. Incorporation of UF Directives and LEED Credit Ratings UFs Facilities Planning and Construction (FPC) office has incorporated additional directives into the LEED sustainable matrix to account for items the University chose to emphasize in the design and construction processes. Since these directiv es are required on all UF projects the for such items is not consider ed and they are assigned an LEED Cost Value (LCV) of 1. Additionally each LEED credit has been estimated and given an LCV score to facilitate the design process. Cost associated with each credit is descriptively noted under the comments of each credit. Credits are labeled according to the chart listed in Table B-1. The University of Florida ratings appear in parenthesis following the credit titles in the next section of this chapter. LEED Credit Summary LEED alternatives are summarized following the LEED scorecard outline. Individual alternatives fall under the main category titles of Sustainable Sites (SS), Water Efficiency (WE), Energy and Atmosphere (EA), Materials and Re sources (MR), Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), and Innovation and Design Process (ID). An overview, brief summation of how the credit relates to existing UF standards, and predicted costs based on th e GSA and IHS models and UFs experiences are given for each credit. Sustainable Sites (SS) Land development and constructi on activities tend to be inherently destructive to native species and habitats. In a ddition development activity on an y given piece of property has potential impacts to surrounding de veloped infrastructure as well as undeveloped connected land. Sustainable site alternatives address a wide scope of issues from reduced s ite selection to reduced light pollution. The merits of the individual alternatives may be debated, for example only a select number of sites will qualify for the Brownfield Redevelopment Credit 3, however, taken as a whole these alternatives are designed to re duce the impacts of c onstruction and reduce the amount of negative influence these activities have on the planet.

PAGE 152

152 SS FPC Directive Prerequisite 2 Cultur al Resources Protection (Required) This additional FPC Directiv e serves as an addendum to the LEED Sustainable Sites Prerequisite 1 noted above and addr esses the issues of historical and cultural resources. Projects must meet requirements of the National Hi storic Preservation Act and memorandum of understanding of division of historic resources. This is a regulatory requirement at the Univer sity of Florida. Co mpliance is mandatory on UF campus. This is an example of how local authority may add, but not subtract, to LEED prerequisites so that the designers and build ers may work from the same uniform program matrix. No LEED points are associated with this additional owner driven prerequisite. As a mandate this earns an LCV of 1. SS FPC Directive Prerequisite 3 Clean Water Protection (Required) This is another FPC Directive noting the regu latory requirement that projects meet the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Safe Drinking Wate r Act (SDWA), and all related state and local laws. Again, this directive is regulatory in nature and compliance is mandatory on all campus projects. No LEED points are associated with th is additional owner driven prerequisite. As a mandate this earns an LCV of 1. SS Credit 1 Site Selection (Highly Recommended) The intent of the sustainable site credit is to avoid the development of environmentally sensitive sites and reduce the impacts of the pl acement of the building footprint, hardscapes, roads, and parking areas. There is no additional direct cost associated with this credit. Typically the Owner has selected a site prior to or in conjunction with the planning phase of a pr oject and property will either meet or fail to meet the set criteria rega rdless of costs. This credit has an LCV of 1. SS Credit 2 Urban Redevelopment/Development Density (Recommended) The intent or purpose of this credit is to prom ote urban infill. The l ogic being there is less infrastructure costs and environmental damage a ssociated with urban infill as compared to a pristine green field site. The cr edit is divided into two options with Option 1 relating to a density factor and Option 2 relating community connec tivity and promotion of a more pedestrian friendly development design concept. Proximity is determined by drawing a 1/2 mile radius around the main building entrance on a site map a nd counting the services within that radius. As with other site specific credits this does not have a direct additional design or construction cost. The only soft cost is associ ated with the LEED submittal which is noted as a separate cost in the LEED evaluation tool. This has an LCV of 1 for projects built on the main campus.

PAGE 153

153 SS Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopm ent (Conditionally Recommended) The rational with credit is to rehabilitate s ites that have been damaged by environmental contamination, thereby potentially saving an undeveloped site. Key to this credit is to pursue creative financing and government support to contri bute to the cost of remediation. Baltimore, Maryland, for example has set up a tax incremen t financing program where the increase in revenue from completed projec ts is ear marked to pay fo r future project cleanup. As with other site specific credits this does not have a direct additional design or construction costs. The only soft cost is associ ated with the LEED submittal which is noted as a separate cost in the LEED evaluation tool. Th is has an LCV of 1 and should be part of the universitys campus wide goals. SS Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access (Highly Recommended) The intent behind this credit is to facilitate the use of public transportation by building occupants. Projects have b een given support by local authority by having bus stops moved to meet the guidelines of this credit. If tenant s are known during the LEED strategy process it may be useful to survey them as to their potential uptake or use by types of public transportation. Fortunately for projects on the UF campus this credit is readily achievable due to the parkand-ride focus for use by students. As with other site specific credits this does not have a direct additional design or construction cost. The only so ft cost is associated with the LEED submittal which is noted as a separate cost in the LEED ev aluation tool. This credit earns an LCV of 1. SS Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation: Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms (Highly Recommended) This credit is to support the use of bicycles as means of transp ortation to and from the site. Bicycle commuting is popular on most US campu ses for students and in other cities around the United States, such as Portland, Oregon, as transp ortation means for professionals. The critique of this credit is that it maybe incorporated in a project where it is doubtful to be utilized by tenants. For example a suburban site in which the prospective tenants have long commutes with little access to bicycle friendly roadways or trai ls. Requirements consist of two options, one commercial and the other residential. The bicycle storage portion of this credit is included in most plans of a commercial or institutional building on UFs campus. The place ment of storage is a design constraint. The additional requirement of having shower and changing facilities is an added cost for most projects. The financial benefits ma y be in having a healthier staff that incorporates daily exercise in their commute. The cost driver in this credit for commerc ial buildings is the estimate of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) occupants due to the costs and design requirements for shower and changing facilities. For classroom based buildings on ca mpus this number is relatively low. For laboratory research buildings or administrative staff buildings this number may be significantly

PAGE 154

154 higher. The two cost categories a ssociated with this credit are th e bike rack costs and showering facilities cost. Bike racks are common requirements for campus buildings and are considered no cost with regards to this credit. Showering facilities are not common in most traditional academic facilities and may be a substantial increase. The cost estimate is based on a design component, a square-footage designation component and material and construction component. Construction and installation cost for a ten capac ity permanent bike rake is approximately $420. The costs associated with Table B-2 are prorated based on this rate. Shower facility costs will vary according to the amount of space allocated, t ypes of finishes, and how the raw space needed for the facilities is calculated in the cost. For th is report the raw cost is not considered. Shower facility costs are based on a floor plan of 200 squa re feet per shower of ceramic tile floor finish with the inclusion of two lock ers and one bench per installa tion. For this report an ADA compliant shower unit was selected which was six times the cost of a non-ADA self-contained unit, $3,350 and $670 respectively. Table B-2 illu strates calculation for thresholds for commercial users. This credit is dependent on the total number of occupants using the building on a fulltime basis. In general terms this will be an addition for most university buildings. As such this earns an LCV of between 3 and 5. SS Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation: Lo w Emitting and Fuel Efficient Vehicles (Recommended) The intent of this credit is to reduce the ne gative impacts from automobile use such as exhaust. The benefit of this design consideration is that it allows for current and future flexibility for building occupant s. UFs Facility and Planni ng division purchased the first electric GEM vehicle for use on campus in 2003. For the purposes of this credit, low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehicles are defined as vehicles that are either classified as Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV ) by the California Air Resources Board or have achieved a minimum gr een score of 40 on the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) annual vehicle rating guide. P referred parking refers to the parking spots that are closes t to the main entrance of the project (exclusive of spaces designated for handicapped) or parking passes provided at a discounted price. Building costs associated with this credit are centered mainly on Option 3 due to additional supply sources and technology associated with al ternative-fuel refueling stations. A cost estimate will need to be provide d by specialty subcontractor based on the type of alternative fuel and number of spaces needed to meet this cr edit. The GSA study sites a cost of $16,426 for three electric-vehicle charging stations. Note that Option 2 and 3 are based on parking onsite and not total FTE occupants. Option 3 would earn an LCV of 3. This cost includes associated electrical distribution costs for an underground parking structure. Option 1 costs are not associated with construction and design fees but rather the Owner or tenets choice to purchase low emitting vehicles. Option 2 costs are minor marking and signage costs or discounted parking fees associated with ope rating costs. Options 1 and 3 would earn an LCV value of 2.

PAGE 155

155 SS Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation: Parking Capacity (Highly Recommended) The main goal of this credit is to reduce th e impacts from single occupancy vehicle use by encouraging ride sharing among occupants. In addition the reduction of impervious surfaces related to parking structures redu ces infrastructure and impacts of stormwater runoff. This credit is divided into four options: two non-residential, one residential, a nd an all or either option that involves no new parking. This credit may be achieved at no cost de pending on the projects location and local parking conditions. For Rinker Hall on UFs campus which was built over part of an existing parking lot, the total number of spaces surroundi ng the project was actually reduced meeting the requirement for Option 4 provide no new pa rking. In each option the credits call for a minimum of parking facilities and have a zero construction cost and potential savings and a LCV 2. SS Credit 5.1 Site Development: Protect or Restore Habitat (Highly Recommended) This credit promotes the conservation of natural areas and the restoration of impacted areas so to provide local habitat and promote biodivers ity. The key to this credit is a primary site survey to identify key natural el ements and adopt a master plan outlining the means by which the requirements of this credit will be met. The cred it is divided into two options noted for sites that are either greenfields (pristine undevelope d sites) or previously developed. The design strategy for Option 1 is to minimize the impact of the buildings footprint and related infrastructure, and the design strategy for Option 2 is to mitigate the pre-existing harm by restoring a portion of the site to its natural state. For Option 1 the General Contractor should be able to perform tasks without any additional cost s. Option 2 would be considered part of the landscape costs and no additional costs. Both of these options should be ach ieved at less than or at no additional costs compared to traditiona l strategies and earn a LCV value of 2. SS Credit 5.2 Site Development: Maxi mize Open Space (Highly Recommended) This credit is similar to SS Credit 5.1 in that the design team looks to develop a master site plan as the design program progresses. This credit differs from 5.1 in that it centers on a maximizing the amount of open space on a site on th e overall site in rela tionship to the building footprint. There are three options available for this credit depending on the presence of local zoning requirements with additional criteria that apply to any applicab le designated option. This credit promotes stacking of building elements and underground parking to limit the impact on the building site. This credit falls with in the same classifications as the other site specific credits. Where possible it is considered a no cost option but that is given the overall design program considering this credit from the onset of the project and did not attempt to redesign the project specifically to meet this credit. This credit has an LCV of 2.

PAGE 156

156 SS Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design: Quantity Control (Recommended) The purpose of this credit is to limit the amount of stormwater leaving the site and promote onsite infiltration. Credit 6.1 a ddresses the quantity of water leaving a site while Credit 6.2 addresses the quality of water leaving the site. The strategies involved in dealing with these issues support local recharge and reduce burdens placed on local stormwater infrastructure. In addition there is an option to re duce impacts on local watersheds a nd aquatic life. This credit consists of two cases, one for existing impervi ous less than 50% of jobsite for which there are two options, and a second case for existing impervious cover is greater th an 50% of the site. There are several strategies that may be incorpor ated to achieve the criteria listed above. The goal of this point is to design the site to main tain natural water flows, protect those receiving points from excessive silts and co ntaminates, and promotes onsite in filtration or alternative uses for stormwater. Several factors go into the costing for this cred it. Factors include th e level and percentage of coverage of existing sites impervious conditions, lot coverage of the new building, the amount of area available for landscape, and existi ng soil conditions. In addition to these factors there are two extreme differences in how to approach this credit in terms of design and construction costs. One approach would be to reduce the hardscape and tu rf grasses and replace both with natural pl antings and vegetative coll ection areas to reduce the amount of runoff. This would actually result in a signifi cant cost savings over traditiona l construction and earn an LCV of 2. The other common design option is include a vegetated or green ro of in the overall design program. The additional cost for this option woul d be the obvious difference in cost between the base case roofing material and the vegetated roof system sele cted. For this report it is assumed that there would be no additional structural materi al needed or load considerations for a lightweight vegetative roof system. For My study th e comparison is between a base case single-layer (60 mils) ballasted EPDM (ethylene propylene di ene terpolymer) and a green roof. The GSA detailed estimate for a 46,150 sf EPDM standard roof installation is $54 8,421 which translates to $11.88 per sf. A vegetative roof system covering 65% of the roof area, or 30,550, sf consisting of a America Hydratech four inch system along with Hydratec h inverted membrane roofing supporting the vegetative roof and the remaini ng 35% of the roof area being standard EPDM costs $981,542 or $21.27. This is a delta of $9.38 between the two systems given the GSA building design. This cost is somewhat mislead ing because the true cost difference depends on the amount of coverage that is vegetative. The square footage cost of the Hydratech 4 system and inverted membrane is estimated at $30.00 per sf which would be a delta of $18.12 per sf. For My study the vegetative roof cost will assume to be $30.00 per sf and cost difference will be based on delta between this cost and whatev er the current buildi ng standard requires. For designs that incorporate Be st Management Practices and natural design controls this would rate an LCV of 2. For those designs in corporating a vegetative -roof system in all likelihood would develop costs with an LCV of 5 due to the high first cost differential between standard roofs and vegetative roofs.

PAGE 157

157 SS Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design: Qu ality Control (Hig hly Recommended) As noted above Credit 6.2 focuses on the qual ity of water runoff. The criteria defines quality in terms of number of total suspended solids (TSS) removed by water treatment strategies incorporated in the design. Several design strategies, both na tural and mechanical, can be us ed to address this credit. Best Management Practices natural design techniques include vegeta tive roofs, pervious pavements, and grid pavers for alternative surface use and rain gardens and vegetative swales as non-structural techniques. The cost for this credit is predominantly site re lated. On a site that has room to incorporate Best Management Practice (BMP) techniques such as infiltration basins, wetlands, vegetativefilter rows, and retention ponds than this is a low cost item. Should the site be limited and this credit be pursued than mechanical systems such as sand filters and water separators need to be incorporated. Mechanical filteri ng means raises the cost of this credit significantly. For a point of reference the GSA study calls for a standard DC Sand Filter System to cover a 2-acre impervious runoff at a cost of $75,000. This cred it would earn a LCV of 2 for a non-mechanical system and a LCV of 4 for a mechanical system (for a 2-acre impervious area). SS Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect: Non-Roof (Highly Recommended) Heat island effects are caused by heat differe nces between natural surfaces and man-made developments. These heat effects may have ne gative impacts to microclimates and human and wildlife habitats. Credit 7.1 focuses on non-roof techniques and Credit 7.2 focuses on roof techniques to limit heat island effects. Credit 7.1 is divided into two options, Option 1 address strategies for hardscapes and Opti on 2 addresses parking structures. The goal of this credit is to provide or restore natural shade and incorporate high-reflectance ma terial to limit heat gain and retention. Keys to design include substituting high-albedo and vegetative surfaces for traditional constructed surfaces. One of the keys to this credit is that standa rd concrete will often m eet the credit-standard 0.3 reflectance. An additional key is that the USGBC allows for an average to be used across the entire site so not all materials n eed to meet the minimum. A hindrance to this credit is that many institutions have prescribed service that is used on all projects such as asphalt paving and parking. Given the flexibility of the credit and av ailability of light paving materials this credit has an LCV of 2 as a no cost item. SS Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effec t: Roof (Highly Recommended) Credit 7.2 specifically addresses the use of roofing materials and options that will help reduce the causes of heat island effect. This cred it consists of three opti ons that incorporate the use of high albedo products, vegetative roofs, and a combination of both techniques. This credit outlines options for achieving cooler roof surfaces which in turn promotes better cooling efficiencies. SRI is calcu lated according to ASTM E 1980. Reflectance is measured according to ASTM E 903, ASTM E 1918, or ASTM C 1549. Emittance is measured

PAGE 158

158 according to ASTM E 408 or ASTM C 1371. Defau lt values will be available in the LEED-NC v2.2 Reference Guide. Product information is av ailable from the Cool Roof Rating Council website at www.coolroofs.org The two basic appro aches for this credit are to use an Energy Star compliant light colored roof that meets the requirements for Option 1 or incorporate a vegetative r oof for at least 50% of the roof surface and other requirements outlined in Option 2. The most cost effective measure to meet this requirement is Option 1. The GSA report notes the following typical systems to meet this requirement as follows: White TPO White PVC White EPDM Option 2 calls for a vegetative roof system Costs for this option are outlined under Sustainable Site Credit 6.1 and the cost increase for such a system depends on the square footage incorporated in the design and the comparative exis ting standard of the project being considered. The use of a light-colored roof membrane to meet the requirement for Option 1 has no additional costs compared to a standard EPDM r oof and is considered to have an LCV of 2. Option 2 designs that incorporate vegetative-roof systems would incur significant cost increases compared to a standard roof. Vegetative-roof systems delta between standard EPDM roof systems is approximately $20.00 per sf. For buildings with roof areas great er than 7,500 sf this would have considerable cost s and rate an LCV of 5. SS Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction (Highly Recommended) The rational for this credit is to limit wasted light from leaving the building or site and to reduce the effects this light has on the nocturnal environment. This credit is divided into interior and exterior requirements, both of which must be met to earn the point. The interior requirements provides for two options one of which di ctates angles of light and the other types of controls. All projects sh all be classified under on e of four zones as defined in IESNA RP 33. The zones note the building in terms of its surrounding context such as city or rural. Design strategies focus on lighting criteria to maintain safe light levels and limiting off-site and night pollution. Keys to design features incl ude cutoff luminaries and low-angle spotlights. Local code requirements may in fluence design criteria. This credit rates an LCV value of 2 being obtai ned at no additional costs. Partial and full cutoff exterior luminaries are readily available an d cost the same as thei r non-cutoff counterparts. The only caveat for this credit is for those f acilities requiring additiona l lighting for security purposes. In these cases the applicability and cost for this credit may need to be looked at in greater detail.

PAGE 159

159 Water Efficiency (WE) The water efficiency credits, all highly r ecommended by UFs Facilities and Planning Division, focus on reducing or eliminating the use of potable water. The first two points look to reduce or eliminate potable water use for genera l landscaping, the second credit looks to reduce the amount of potable water used for sewage co nveyance, and the last credit looks to reduce overall potable water use throughout the buildin g. There are synergies between Credit 2 (Innovative Wastewater Technologi es) and Credit 3 (Water Use Reduction / 20% and 30%). Although the economic impacts in terms of savi ngs are small for an individual project, the ecological benefits to society are great. These techniques may be used to lesson burdens on local water supplies and treatment plants as well as mitigate potential drought impacts. WE Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping : Reduce by 50% (Highly Recommended) This credit was designed to both promote na tural landscapes and reduce potable and natural surface and subsurface wate r for use in landscaping irrigati on. This credit, along with the other Water Efficiency credits, looks to reduce the amount of potable wa ter used for functions that do not require potable water (i.e., landscap ing, sewer conveyance). The savings are two fold. First there is no need to pay and use infras tructure to supply potable water that is simply going to be used in irrigation or flushed backed to the supply source for re-treatment. Second there are conventional methods at no cost, and ot her outlying more costly methods, that reduce the overall use of potable water. These methods should be incorporated, or at minimum closely considered, in the building design. Basic desi gn features to achieve this requirement may include plant species factors, irrigation efficiencies, and use of captured rain water or recycled/gray water. WE Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping: No Potable Water Use or No Irrigation (Highly Recommended) This credit goes a step beyond the 50% reduction in WE Credit 1.1 and requires either that no potable water used in irrigati on or no permanent irrigation system be installed on a project site. Design features for this credit tend to limit turf grass and increa se the use of native plantings and low-water groundcovers. Both Credit WE 1.1 and W.2 earn a LCV of 2 and with regard to both cases would result in cost savings compared to a design standard that incorporates potable water for irrigation. Groundcover and native plants may ha ve slight increase in cost over turf grass but these costs are design and species dependent. Th is credit may be achieved by a number of individual design features or various features combined. Use of indigenous plants and captured rainwater, or greywater, are examples of two design techniques that may be used individually or combined to meet this credit. Should WE Credit 1.2 be met the project would be aw arded two points since this credit exceeds the requirements of its pred ecessor. The Universi ty of Florida campus irrigation is 100% reclaimed water. Campus planners also stre ss the use of native landscaping throughout the design process.

PAGE 160

160 WE Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies (Highly Recommended) This credit looks to accomplish the simultaneous goals, the first being to reduce the total wastewater created, secondly reduce the depend ency on potable water to convey waste, and thirdly provide an opportunity to r echarge local aquifers. This cred it is divided into two options, one of which must be met to earn the category po int. This credit has received its fair share of attention on the University of Florida campus with the inclusion of the waterless urinal in Rinker Hall. Several building professionals and cont ractors on campus sought to exclude waterless urinals as a design option to such extent that th e first floor urinals were installed as traditional flush valve systems and the second and third floor urinals were plumbed for water should the waterless urinal experiment fail. Fortunate ly the urinals have prevailed and are now the building standard throughout campus saving an estimated 40,000 gallons of water per each installation. Other options for reduction of water include dual fl ush toilets and low flush toilets. Use of greywater and captured water are also exam ples of reducing the use of potable water for conveyance. The main hurdle for this credit is that potab le water is still readily available and highly subsidized and therefore difficult to make a case to pursue this cr edit based on initial cost for large scale commercial projects. Secondly, efficient fixtures alone typically do not achieve this credit unless self-contained units are utilized. The supply calculat ions on low-flow fixtures alone tend to push the design need to incorporate stormw ater collection or greywater piping to achieve this credit. Waterless urinals ha ve a lower installation cost due to the lack of supply pipes but alone may not be an effective strategy to earn this point. This credit may be one of the hardest to cost due to variations in design strategies and feasibility issues associated with this credit. This credit has only been pursed on UFs campus on one building, the Hub renovation project, and is only achieved on less than 25% of over 100 LEED 2.0 sampled projects. This credit was not pursued on Rinker Hall due to the more stringent requirements of LEED-NC 2.0 that were in effect at the time of submission but cost data from Rinker Hall suggests that the cistern system and associat ed piping used to capture rain water cost $52,500. This credit earns a moderate co st impact LCV of 4 to address the costs of a rain water harvesting strategy. Other strategies may have greater or lesser costs depending on which strategy is chosen, supply needed, and size of the building. WE Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction: 20% (Highly Recommended) WE Credits 3.1 and 3.2 focuses on the buildi ngs, excluding irriga tion, overall potable water consumption and design techniques that will reduce this consumption by 20% and 30% respectively. This credit focuse s on reduction of potable water vi a internal plumbing fixtures. The scope of the credit does not include HVAC equipment and industrial equipment such as dishwashers or laundry facilities. With this na rrow scope of internal occupant used plumbing fixtures a 20% reduction if feas ible simply by incorporating low-flow fixtures. Low-flow fixtures without sensors do not co st more to purchase or install compared to their traditional counter parts. In some cases, as in the case of waterless urinals, they will cost less than their traditional counter part to install. As such this credit receives an LCV of 2 as a no cost item. The GSA (GSA 2004) recommends design strategies that include the following:

PAGE 161

161 Low-flow lavatory faucets / aerators (rate d at 2.0 gallons per minute (gpm) or less) Ultra-low flow lavatory faucets (rated at 0.5 gpm) Electronic (infrared) sensors to au tomatically turn faucets on and off Low-flow kitchen sinks (r ated at 2.0 gpm or less) Low-flow showerheads (ra ted at 2.0 gpm or less) Additional strategies recommended include: Dual flush toilets (1.6/0.8 gallons per flush (gpf)) Ultra-low flush toilets (1.1 to 1.4 gpf) Foot pedal controls for lavatories Low-flow urinals (rated at 0.5 gpf) Waterless urinals The GSA achieved reductions of 20% or mo re on their simulations by incorporating one basic strategy, specifying 0.5 gpm faucets at bathroom lavatories, at no cost. WE Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction: 30% (Highly Recommended) WE Credit 3.2 requires an additional 10% reduc tion over what is required for WE Credit 3.1. Should this credit be achieved it would earn two points toward LEED certification since it exceed the requirements of its predecessor. Both Credits WE 3.1 and WE 3.2 have synergie s with WE Credit 2 which looks to reduce potable water use for wastewater conveyance. Sa vings from WE Credit 2 may be included in the calculations for WE 3.1 and WE 3.2. University of Florida incor porates low-flow fixtures and waterless urinals to address these credits. The design jump to meet a 30% reduction is significant in that simple switching to lowflow fixtures alone makes it difficult to achieve such savings. Additiona l strategies typically need to be incorporated to meet this credit. As with all design credits what is chosen determines the cost basis. The incorporation of waterless urinals may be enough to achieve this credit, along with those used to achieve WE Credit 3.1. St rategies that add costs include stormwater collection, greywater collection, and composting toil ets. This credit earns an LCV range of between 2 and 5 depending on the strate gies incorporated in the design. Energy and Atmosphere (EA) The Energy and Atmosphere credits are heavily weighted in addressing the use and source of energy that is to be consumed on a project. Fourteen of th e seventeen available points focus on energy reduction, renewable energy, and green s ources of energy. The remaining three points fall across three broad categories, those being additional commissioning, ozone depletion concerns, and measurement and veri fication systems. The goal of this section is to reduce the amount of energy consumed by a building, verify the building is performing as designed, and reduce or mitigate the impacts of the power that is used.

PAGE 162

162 EA Credit 1 Optimize Energy P erformance (Highly Recommended) This credit is based on comparing two sets of building data, one being the baseline data and the other being the final proj ect model. There are three options to consider when evaluating this credit. Each option has diffe rent levels of compliance, compli cations, and costs. Percentage increase in performance of the project mode l over the baseline model is how the points are determined in Option 1. Options 2 and 3 are prescrip tive in nature with various restrictions such as size of building and building location as being potentially influential in achieving the respective points. For Option 1 there are significant energy and de sign model considerations. Options 2 and 3 are less costly but the rewards in terms of points are less and the re strictions somewhat greater. One of the goals of this credit is to maximize the coordinated benefits of envelope, lighting, and mechanical systems efficient design to save energy. The GSA report (GSA 2004) lists three new cour thouse scenarios with regard to energy modeling: First is a one LEED Cr edit Certified takeoff, second is a three LEED Credit Silver takeoff, and third is a five LEED Credit Gold ta keoff. The energy efficiency measures (EEM) for the Certified and Silver ta keoffs included the following: Reduced lighting power densities to 1.0 watts per square foot incorporating low-power ballasts at no added costs for materials or design. Daylight dimming systems at peri meter offices with increased costs for dimmable ballasts, light sensors, and controls. Daylight sensors estimated at $160.00 each and dimmable ballasts estimated at $150.00 each. Occupancy lighting sensors for all enclosed spaces and meeting rooms. Additional costs for sensing and controls estimated at $160.00 per unit. The incorporation of premium efficiency pump and air handling unit (AHU) motors. Premium efficient pumps were estimated at $121.00 per unit and premium AHU motors are estimated at $106.00 per unit. Estimated energy savings range from 16.9% above ASHRAE performance requirements for a One-credit Certified takeoff to 25.4% savings for a three-credit Silver takeoff, and to 35.2% savings for five-credit Gold takeoff. Additiona l EEM techniques used in the Silver and Gold LEED takeoffs include the following: Upgrade from GSA standard Modulating Condensing Boilers (MCB) rated at 3,500,000 BTU/h each to four Condensing Boilers (CB) rated at 2,000,000 BTU/h each. Cost premium estimated at $50,000.00 for the courthouse project. Upgrade from GSA standard Highefficiency Chillers (HC) with variable frequency drives to two 325-ton centrifugal chi llers. Cost premium for two chillers estimated at $90,000.00.

PAGE 163

163 Variable frequency drive cooling tower fans at no cost premium. Additional cost premiums to account for ducti ng and building monitoring for enthalpy heat recovery units. Addition of Carbon dioxide (CO2) monitors to adjust fresh air based on occupants in courtrooms, conference rooms, and other group spaces. Premiums assigned for monitors as well as wiring, system tie-ins, and control programming. EA Credit 2 On-Site Renewable En ergy (Conditionally Recommended) With the current state of petroleum depende ncy there is a push among all stakeholders involved in construction, development, and mainte nance to seek alternative energy sources. This credit provides an opportunity to be rewarded for such efforts. Although current technology provides limited payback based on la rge initial costs for renewable systems, the potential for even greater costs for petroleum in the future seem to make these alternatives appealing nonetheless. In addition to reduction for demand these systems o ffer cleaner alternatives to petroleum based power. Three points are available under this credit. Renewable energy systems include such non-pollu ting technologies such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass and bio-gas. This cred it is based on percentage of cost savings not necessarily power saved. The University of Flor ida supports these types of technologies locally. The difficulty of the credit is achieving the necessary amount of energy based on cost and the ability to produce enough energy to meet the necessary amounts. Several strategies are available to meet this credit. They in clude, but are not limited to, the following: Photovoltaics Wind turbines Solar Geothermal Biomass Biogass LEED-NC 2.2 reduced the minimum of energy production from 5% to 2.5%. This reduction may make the achievement of this credit more viable. First cost s associated with this credit are dependent on the type and size of sy stem to meet the amount of energy desired. EA Credit 3 Enhanced Commiss ioning (Highly Recommended) EA Credit 3 builds upon the commissioning prer equisite by requiring additional processes by the commissioning agent, owner, and design t eam. The USGBC outlines the requirements for enhanced commissioning as follows: Keys to successful commissioning include involving the commissioning agent from the start of the project and by getting buy in from a ll players in the construction team as to the value

PAGE 164

164 and purpose of the additional commissioning re quirements. Commissioning allows for a proactive stance with regard to fine tuning a buildings systems. Commissioning costs are covere d in detail under Energy a nd Atmosphere Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning Pr erequisite 1. The GSA notes complete commissioning costs associated with their extensive program cost runs over one dollar per gsf which resulted in a $0.05/GSF increase in total construction cost s. The Portland reported noted under the commissioning prerequisite lists costs between $0.10 0.15/GSF of total construction costs as a fee range for total commissioning depending on the comp lexity of the project. This percentage is used in this reports model. The tasks associated with this credit involve more time upfront during the design process and significant amount of time post occupancy. The size and complexity of the building ultimately determine the commissioning costs, for My study this credit earns an LCV of between 3 and 5. UFs Facilities and Planning consid er this part of their building program and as such rates a zero additional cost. As noted in the under the Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 1: Fundamental Buildi ng Systems Commissioning discussion this does not mean that this a no cost item. UFs Faciliti es and Planning department confirms this cost to be $0.75 per gross square footage. The IHS St udy considers this an additional cost based on hourly estimates of work needed to be completed. EA Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management (Conditionally Recommended) The original intent of this credit was to install base building HVAC and fire suppression systems that did not contain HCFC or Halon so as to support and provide early compliance to the Montreal Protocol. This credit now provides two options and an additional requirement. Early critiques of this credit point out that non-HCFC equipment is less efficient than HCFC equipment posing this credit against earlier energy efficiency points. Re gardless, existing HCFC based systems would need to show a phase-out plan to non-HCFC systems. Strategies for achieving this credit include natu ral ventilation and utilizing ba seline HVAC systems that have minimal impact on global warming and ozone depletion. This credit is often criticized due to the f act zero ozone depleting potential systems run less efficiently than HCFC equipment thus putting it odds with Energy and Atmosphere Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance. According to th e GSA report vapor compression chillers using HFC refrigerants can typically be purchased with minimal or no cost impact compared to HCFC chillers at similar performance/load ratings. This earns an LCV of 2 but does not reflect the potential negative effect with regards to optimizi ng energy performance. EA Credit 5 Measurement and Verification (Highly Recommended) This credit, often referred to as the Johnson Controls cred it, focuses on developing a real-time energy and performance project specifi c monitoring system. Similar to enhanced commissioning, EA Credit 5 looks to take a proactive stance to systems monitoring as opposed to waiting for progressive system failure. The additio nal benefit of this credit is that it allows for a higher level of performance m onitoring and subsequent data to compare with pre-construction energy modeling. This allows for a greater feedback loop for designe rs to critique their models and estimates.

PAGE 165

165 The key to this credit is to develop a system that allows for a comparison between actual and expected performance. The system insta lled would have to provide enough information to make this comparison meaningful. The greatest im pact in terms of retu rn-on-investment (ROI) is the ability to monitor perfor mance throughout the lifecycle of th e buildings. This information shows the degradation of equipment over time an d when it would be most cost effective to replace system components. The GSA report (GSA 2004) is based on LEED 2.1 and as a result has slightly different constraints and requirements. Overall, the credit intent and reference standard remains the same. The difficulty with this credit is that the GSA baseline requirements include HVAC and building automation systems (BAS) which meet the necessary requirements for this credit. The GSA cost placed for this credit involves a soft cost of $0.41/GSF which resulted in a $107,058 for the 262,000 gsf new courthouse This credit is based on the complexity of the project, whether or not metering equipment is included in the base line building, and total gsf of the project, as a result it earns an LCV value of between 3 and 5. EA Credit 6 Green Power (Conditionally Recommended) The goal of this credit is to support and en courage the developmen t of renewable energy resources. The power may come from the local provider of grid power but a premium may be added to support the purchase of Green-e certified power source. The University of Florida has supported renewable energy from the local provide r, Gainesville Regiona l Utility (GRU) since 2003. The minimum goal is to purchase at 35% of buildings energy from renewable sources. The baseline measurement for achieving 35% is from the calculations performed for EA Credit 1. Although Green-e provided details for green sources of power the contract with a local supplier does not have to be certified by Green-e as long as the source meets the technical requirements of the Green-e program. Forms of green power proof include renewable energy certificates (RECs), tradable renewable certificates (TRCs) and green tags. The GSA study reports premiums ranging from 1.25 to 2.5 cents / kWh for most purchase contracts depending on location and availability. Costs drop as c ontract amounts increase. Cost ranges for the courthouse in the GSA study demonstrated costs between $24,000 and $32,000, depending on the energy model used in the ca lculations. The following lists green power availability, premiums, and years made available in the state of Florida. FL City of Tallahassee/Sterling Planet Green for You biomass, PV 2002 1.6/kWh FL City of Tallahassee/Sterling Plan et Green for You PV only 2002 11.6/kWh FL Florida Power and Light / Green Mountain Energy Sunshine Energy biomass, wind, PV 2004 0.975/kWh FL Gainesville Regional Utilities GRUgr een Energy landfill gas, wind, PV 2003 2.0/kWh

PAGE 166

166 FL Keys Energy Services / Sterling Plan et GO GREEN: USA Green wind, biomass,PV 2004 1.60/kWh FL Keys Energy Services / Sterling Planet GO GREEN: Florida Ev er Green solar hot water, PV, biomass 2004 2.75/kWh FL Tampa Electric Company (TECO) Tampa Electric's Renewable Energy Program PV, landfill gas, biomass co-firing 2000 5.0/kWh The cost for this credit, as demonstrated in the GSA example, is dependent on the size and efficiency of the project. UFs contracts have been consistently at 2.0 cents per kWh. With the broad assumption that most buildings on a unive rsity campus are less than 262,000 gsf this credit earns an LCV of 3. Materials and Resources (MR) Materials and Resource credits focus on reus ing parts of an existing building for a renovation project, construction waste management to reduce landfill burden, recycle content of new building material, and regional and renewabl e building products. The synergies for these credits work together most effi ciently in dense urban or munici pal areas that have recycling infrastructure and building produc t manufacturing. The critique of these credits is that some areas do not have the infrastructure to accept recyclab le material in the form of diverted waste. In addition some projects may have limited access to local and regional materials that match the design program that will meet the minimum cost ratio to achieve points. Overall the goal of these credits is to support and enact change th at will look to divert waste and increase the recycling process within communities and the constr uction industry. The majority, if not all, of the points available under this categ ory are influenced solely or pa rtly by the General Contractor responsible for overseeing the project in its entirety. MR Credit 1.1 Building Reuse: Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof (Conditionally Recommended) One of the basic tenants of conservation is to not build at all. This credit serves to provide opportunity to earn credits for re novation projects that reuse existing building stock. Additional benefits sited for these points are to preser ve cultural resources and preserve existing neighborhood scale and character. MR Credit 1.1 relates to preserving 75% of the building structural elements while MR credit 1.2 relate s to preserving 95% of the defined required elements, and MR credit 1.3 allows for a point for preserving 50% of in terior non-structural elements. MR credit 1.3 may be achieved without complying with MR Credit 1.1 or 1.2. There is typical community support for keepi ng existing building stock in historic and community supported building centers.

PAGE 167

167 MR Credit 1.2 Building Reuse: Maintain 95% of Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof (Conditionally Recommended) Projects that meet the requirements for ME Credit 1.2 receive the poi nt for ME Credit 1.1 as well. MR Credit 1.3 Building Reuse: Maintain 5 0% of Interior Non-St ructural elements (Conditionally Recommended) This credit is independent of MR Credit 1.1 a nd 1.2 and serves to allow a point for reusing exiting non-structural elements such as interior walls and floor cove rings. This credit is based on square footage of the completed project including any additions. This credit serves to reduce the amount of waste produced from renova tions and changes to existing fl oor plans. The key to this credit is the percentage is based on the final projects square footage. Material and Resources (MR) Credits 1.1 through 1.3 are difficult to estimate and are highly project specific but in most cases they will not be an additional cost compared to new construction on a green site or demolition and rebuild on an existing site. One point to note with regard to these credits is that if the threshold fo r use is not met, any material incorporated in a new design may qualify to be counted in the wa ste diversion calculations (e.g., MR Credits 3.1 and 3.2) since it was essentially diverted by virt ue of being incorporated in the new design. MR Credit 2.1 Construction Waste Management: Divert 50% from Disposal (Recommended) Construction waste accounts for over 40% of landfill deposits. While only a fraction of this amount accounts for new construction, approximat ely six percent, this credit seeks to reduce construction waste leaving a jobsite by 50% while MR Credit 2.2 requires 75% of the waste leaving a jobsite be sent fo r recycling or salvage. MR Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management: Divert 75% from Disposal (Recommended) Both credit MR 2.1 and 2.2 are highly depende nt on both the commitment of the General Contractor and the availability of landfill alternatives. In genera l it is agreed that wood, plastic, and steel products may be recycled at no cost or slight profit. All ot her materials are highly dependent on alternatives and options with regard to secondary use or even acceptance by original supplier to accept returned waste product. MR Credit 2.1 and 2.2 are determined by either weight or volume however the select method must be used consisten tly throughout the job. Detailed r ecordkeeping is essential to prove the claimed amount recycle d. Strategies noted for this cr edit include recycling cardboard, metal, brick, acoustical tile, concrete, plastic, glass, gypsum wallboard, and insulation. The material can either be divided onsite or sent o ffsite to be separated. A key for success is to develop goals and a diversion plan early on in th e design process and modify as needed to reach decided goal.

PAGE 168

168 The cost range for these two credits will vary based on the size of the project, the waste divergence goal, the site location and associated local dumping costs, and the experience of both the design and construction teams. There are two important factors that determine whether these credits should be pursued. The first is the jobs ite logistics and if ther e is room for staging multiple receptors for waste. If there is not enough room for multiple bins and there is no option for sorting trash offsite than this credit become s unobtainable. The second is whether or not there are local institutions availa ble to receive the sorted waste. An example of this is the collection and recycling of gyps um material at Rinker Hall on the UF campus. The general contractor had to pay a premium for the gypsum s upplier to accept the waste and transfer it back to the plant over 100 miles away. The GSA notes that a waste management plan is a team effort with several necessary steps to ensure an effective plan. Figure B-1 illustra tes the necessary steps of a successful waste management plan. Costs for CWM plans vary by size of jobsite types of materials being recycled, local tipping fees, regional recycling, a nd standard practices of the c ontractors working on the job. The city of Seattle and its respective county, King County, issued a contractors guide to recycling in 2002 (Venture 2002). This report provides worksh eets and sample specifications that may be used in developing a CWM plan. The LCV for this credit ranges from 2 to 4 depending the experience of the design/construction team, material s to be diverted, dumping f ees, and any associated waste management fee. The GSA estimates $0.12/GSF for the courthouse project for a total cost of $31,658 as the high-end markup to subsidize a CWM plan to achieve the 50 percent level of waste diversion. To achieve the 75 percent di version rate the GSA model adds a lump sum $20,000 to handle additional sorting and administration fees. This num ber is not substantiated in any way and the report does provide the caveat that this percentage may be reached at no additional cost depending on the ty pes of materials diverted and ea se of separation. This number would raise the GSF estimate by $0.08 to a total of $0.20 GSF to achieve MR Credit 2.2. MR Credit 3.1 Materials Reuse: 5% (Conditionally Recommended) This goal of this credit is to reuse buildi ng products to reduce the demand for new products and reduce the impacts of all the manufacturi ng processes that support new products. The difficulty in attaining this credit is two-fol d. Firstly, the desired product must be readily available for reuse and secondly th e cost is determined by cost of products in relationship to the entire project budget. MR Credit 3.1 is for a 5% Reuse percentage compared to the overall budget and MR Credit 3.2 is for 10% Reuse ra tio. The credit is defined as follows: Use salvaged, refurbished or reused materi als such that the sum of these materials constitutes at least 5%, based on cost, of th e total value of mate rials on the project. Mechanical, electrical and pl umbing components and specialty items such as elevators and equipment shall not be included in this calc ulation. Only include materials permanently

PAGE 169

169 installed in the project. Furniture may be incl uded, providing it is in cluded consistently in MR Credits 3. Cost basis for this credit is covered under the MR Credit 3.2 Material s Reuse: 10% credit. MR Credit 3.2 Materials Reuse: 10% (Conditionally Recommended) The requirements for this credit match those of MR Credit 3.1 except for the increase in percentage from five to 10 percent relative to the cost of the entire project. Should this credit be achieved the project would be awarded two point s, one for meeting the requirements for MR Credit 3.1 and the additional point for mee ting the requirement for MR Credit 3.2. This credit is difficult to achieve in large scale construction projec ts like those found on university campuses. It may be viable for sma ll buildings that presen t opportunities to used salvaged material. The USGBC does not include re used items from the original site in these cases thus making it even more difficult to achieve this credit. The only way to determine this credit is to calculate the value of the salvaged material versus th e total value of material used on a project. The USGBC allows the use of 45% ma terial factor, less MEP, labor, and equipment, to be applied to the entire construction contra ct to estimate the total dollar value of all the material contained in a job. For genera l estimating this will earn an LCV of 5. MR Credit 4.1 Recycled Content: 10% (p ost-consumer + pre-consumer) (Highly Recommended) This credit is directly suppor tive of the USGBCs stated goa l of market transformation. Their goal was to increase demand for products with recycled content such that corresponding supplies should increase. For the most part this has occurred with products such as carpets and flooring. The benefit of increased recycle conten t is to reduce the burden or demand for virgin materials and reduce waste. This, similar to other credits with ratio re quirements, it best ac hieved by developing a project based goal and continuous ly monitoring progress as the job buyout and subcontractors are signed to the project. Cred it MR 4.2 raises this requirement from 10% to 20%. Cost basis for this credit will be addressed under MR Credit 4.2 Recycled Content: 20% credit. MR Credit 4.2 Recycled Content: 20% (post-consumer + pre-consumer) (Recommended) As noted above this credit raises the recycl ed content requirement to 20% based on total materials cost. At this level it may be necessa ry to view the project from holistic view and consider recycled content for products that may not be readily obvious. The credit is outlined as follows: Use materials with recycled content such that the sum of post-consumer recycled content plus one-half of the pre-consumer content constitutes an additional 10% beyond MR Credit 4.1 (total of 20%, based on cost) of the total value of the materials in the project.

PAGE 170

170 The recycled content value of a material assembly shall be determined by weight. The recycled fraction of the assembly is then multiplied by the cost of assembly to determine the recycled content value. Mechanical, electrical and pl umbing components and specialty items such as elevators shall not be included in this calculation. Only include materials permanently installed in the project. Furniture may be included, provi ding it is included consistently in MR Credits 3. Recycled content shall be defined in accord ance with the Internat ional Organization of Standards document, ISO 14021Environmental labels and declarationsSelf-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental labeling). Post-consumer material is defined as wa ste material generated by households or by commercial, industrial and institut ional facilities in their role as end-us ers of the product, which can no longer be used for its intended purpose. Pre-consumer material is defi ned as material diverted from the waste stream during the manufacturing process. Excluded is reutilization of materials such as rework, regrind or scrap generated in a process and capable of be ing reclaimed within the same process that generated it. The crucial influencing factors with MR Cred it 4.1 and 4.2 is the ra tios are based on cost which involve items from several divisions and across several trades and only applies to the dollar value of the portion of the material that is recycled not the entire dollar value of the whole material. For example concrete consists of Po rtland cement, large aggregate, fine aggregate, water, and additive mixtures in various amounts depending on the design strength and purpose of the concrete. If fly ash is used as replacemen t for Portland cement then only the value of the cement replaced, based on the cost times the weight ratio relative to the total weight of concrete, is calculated not the entire va lue of the placed concrete. The GSA model notes a zero cost for MR-4.1: R ecycled Content, 5% due to the types of structures and materials used f acilitates the use of high recycled products, specifically steel and concrete. This credit earns an LCV of 2. To achieve the minimu m recycled content of 10% for the MR-4.2 credit, the GSA study gi ves a range of no cost to moderate cost. The high-end cost scenario assumes a lower percent recycled co ntent for steel and the need to incorporate additional building products in the calculation. The sole cost driver being the need to pay additional shipping for 90% synthetic gypsum boar d that is made at only a limited number of plants in the United States (US). Synthe tic gypsum is made from byproducts of other manufacturing process as opposed to natural gypsum that is mine d. There is no cost difference between the synthetic and natural products. Th e additional figure to cover shipping for higher recycled content material is noted as $0.30/GSF or $79,331 for the courthouse project. MR Credit 5.1 Regional Materials: 10% Extracted, Processed and Manufactured Regionally (Highly Recommended) This credit is similar to several of those in th is category in that its main influence is to enact market change and support sustainability in a broader social a nd economic scale. By

PAGE 171

171 supporting local processes the proj ect provides monetary payback to the local citizenry involved in producing the goods. In addition there is th e benefit and savings of limited transportation costs and corresponding impacts to the environmen t. This credit is based on the cost of the material value used in the product. Cost basis for this credit will be addressed under MR Credit 5.2: Regional Materials: 20% Extracted, Processed, and Manufactured Regionally. MR Credit 5.2 Regional Materials: 20% Extracted, Processed and Manufactured Regionally (Recommended) This credit has been substantially reduced fr om the previous 50% requirement noted in LEED 2.1. Similar to previous credits that incr ease the required percen tage this credit would provide both a point for meeting MR Credit 5.1 and MR Credit 5.2. Th e first step is to determine the total material costs on site. If this is unknown it is acceptable to estimate this value as 45% of the contract price. The second step is to determine the acquisition distance of the products used on site. The third step is to determine th e value of the regional materials used to produce these products. As noted previously the GSA report was ba sed on LEED 2.1 which set the requirements for MR-5.1 at 20% and MR-5.2 at 50%. LEED 2.2 cu rrently lists the requirement levels for MR5.1 at 10% and MR 5.2 at 20%. This credit has changed also in that LEED 2.1 counted the entire value of a product if it was assemb led within 500 miles of the jobs ite regardless of the origin of the parts whereas LEED 2.2 considers only the va lue of the materials produced locally in determining the final percentage. The estimati ng of LCV scores is highly dependent on the location of the job and the materials selected for construction. The predominate exterior walls on the UF campus are redbrick and the predominant stru ctural elements are steel and concrete, all of which are produced with 500 miles of campus. The main influencing factors for this credit are those materials which makeup the lion share of construction material costs. Should the job incorporate traditional high valu e materials and if these materi als are available within the 500 mile limit then the additional costs should be minimal to achieve these credits. Sample big ticket items noted in the GSA report include the following (GSA 2004): Cast-in-place concrete Structural steel Stone/Brick Precast concrete panels Concrete masonry units Gypsum wall board Acoustical ceiling tiles These credits receive an LCV of between 1 and 5 depending on th e job location and construction materials incorporated in design.

PAGE 172

172 MR Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Mate rials (Conditionally Recommended) This is another credit which serves to aid market transformation and support the use of rapidly renewable resources as alternatives to traditional elements. An often cited example is the use of bamboo flooring in lieu of hardwood flooring. Bamboo reaches full growth in approximately five years whereas oak trees may take 20 years or more to reach full growth. By using renewable resources with allow for increased production without long-term impacts. This credit is also based on cost of material co mpared to total project material costs. Not all renewable products are suited for all commercial applications and caution needs to be taken in the design process to ensure reliabili ty and long-term integrity of products selected. Sample of rapidly renewable materials include the following: Cork flooring Linoleum flooring Agrifiber substrates used in casework and partitions Bamboo flooring Wool/Natural fiber carpets The USGBC has cut in half the minimum percen tage necessary to achieve this credit from 5% to 2.5% with the revisions that took place in LEED 2.2. The GSA study did not pursue this credit at the 5% level due to the difficulty in ach ieving this credit on midto large-scale projects. This is an extremely difficult credit to achie ve with only seven out of 111 or 6.3% of LEED 2.0 projects achieving this credit. UF has only appl ied for this credit on the Library West renovation and expansion project. This credit is depende nt on the amount, type, and differential cost between traditional construction materials and rapidl y renewable materials. As such it earns an LCV of between 2 and 5. MR Credit 7 Certif ied Wood (Recommended) The goal of this credit is to increas e market demand for wood harvested from environmentally responsible forest managers that follow Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) guidelines. The FSC produces guidelines and criteria that wood harv esters and producers subscribe to in their daily opera tions. This credit applies to w ood products permanently installed in the project. A common critique of this point is that for a building th at does not incorporate structural or supporting wood products a single wood door purchased from a responsible manufacturer would qualify for a point should it be the only wood door in the design scheme. In defense of this point, more and more certified w ood products are now available from suppliers at lower costs. The difficulty of this credit at tim es may be the education of the contractors on the job, tracking points of origin, and determining the correct percentages based on cost. Costs for certified wood products have continued to decrease in the last ten years and the price for FSC certified standard dimensional lu mber is now equivalent to non-FSC certified lumber (Depot 2007). Millstead Corporation is th e sole supplier of wood products for the Home Deport retail chain and reports that over 90% of its wood products are from old growth managed production sites in North America (Depot 2007) and FSC products are given preference and

PAGE 173

173 produced when feasible. The difficulty in rating th is credit is that buildings will vary in the amount and type of wood used in construction. Additionally a require ment for this credit includes non-rented temporary sh oring and bracing. For standa rd construction products this earns an LCV credit of 2 however for projects with large amounts of specia lty lumber this credit could have an LCV range of between 2 and 5. The GSA courthouse study determined a cost impact of $2.28/GSF for a total of $596,597. Th e majority of these costs, $395,394 worth or 66.3%, came from Fixed Furnishings and Casework and Judges chambers Fixed Furnishings associated with courtroom construction. Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ) Indoor Environmental Quality credits focus on increased ventilation and prescribed standards for Indoor Air Quality (IAQ), reduction of material off-gassing, occupant control over heating and lighting systems, and connecting indoor spaces with outdoor spaces by building upon a biophillia based premises. As with all credits there are those which may be readily achieved, like providing an on and off lighting switc h for building occupants to have control of their workspace, and credits that may be difficult to achieve such as daylight and views for 90% of regularly occupied spaces for occupants, howev er the goals of this category are to provide a better working environment for employees than traditional design schemes and guidelines. EQ Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Met hod (Conditionally Recommended) This credit provides two options, one for mech anically ventilated spaces and one for naturally-ventilated spaces. The purpose of this credit se rves to provide constant CO2 monitoring to ensure proper and safe levels of air quality within the building space. This credit requires that the system in pl ace be either self co rrecting or provide a mechanism to alarm tenants of possible air quality deficiencies. The inclusion of this credit may be heavily influenced by the number of building occupants and the type of work or processes taking place onsite. There are two keys to this credit. One is that the credit does not require the CO2 sensors be tied to outside ventilation damper to adjust flow of outside air for optimization. The second is that it does not require a CO2 sensor in every room. Sensors should be placed in large meeting areas, common rooms, and rooms that are most di stant from air handling equipment. The GSA study lists 60 sensors (including tie-ins to BMS) at $1,080.00 each for a total cost of $64,800.00 or $0.25/GSF. This study yields a sensor pe r every 4,365/GSF as a benchmark for determining the number of sensors. This credit earns an LCV of between 2 and 5 depending on the size of the project and the number of CO2 monitors required. EQ Credit 2 Increased Ventilation (Conditionally Recommended) This credit demands additional outdoor ventila tion provided over standard inclusion rates set forth in this categorys Prerequisite 1 Mi nimum IAQ performance. The critique for this credit is that conforming design systems usually require more energy and as such this credit competes with reduced energy credits noted in the Energy and Atmosphere category. The credit

PAGE 174

174 is divided into two options, one for mechanically ventilated spaces and one for naturally ventilated spaces. Several strategies may be incorporated to m eet this goal. For mechanically ventilated space heat recovery systems may be utilized to le sson energy costs. The GSA report states that a well designed building should meet this credit with not additional construction costs. The only caveat associated with this cost is the l earning curve associated with performing and documenting Air Diffusion Performance Index (ADPI) calculations for submittal with LEED documents. The GSA report provides an overview of th is credit and states that although APDI calculations are not typically pe rformed for an HVAC submittal th e calculation process typically verifies the existing design and does not require any significant changes. The APDI calculation process is more of a means of verifying and refini ng the initial design. This earns an LCV of 2. EQ Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan: During Construction (Highly Recommended) Achieving this credit falls squarely on th e shoulders of the general contractor and mechanical contractor to produce and stick with a construction plan that meets the stated requirement. There are synergies with regard to this credit with EQ Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan: Before Occupancy and EQ Credit 5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control. As a requirement for achieving this cred it, all absorptive material s must be protected. This is where the control and oversight of the ge neral contractor is required. The sequencing of material installation is also a key in limiting th e costs of temporary protection and possibility of contamination. The costs associated with this credit will gr eatly be determined by the differences between standards and the credit requirements. A low-cost example may be that the contractor currently follows SMACNA guidelines and will only add th e cost of MERV 8 filters throughout the job duration. A high-cost example would be a contr actor unfamiliar with the guidelines that adds additional labor and management to oversee a nd document the SMACNA process as well as additional materials. The GSA study provides a range costs starting with a low-cost estimate of $8,519.00, or $0.03/GSF, to a high-cost estimate of $45,452.00, or $0.17/GSF to achieve this credit. Based on this information this credit receives a LCV of between 3 and 5 depending on the size of the building. EQ Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Manage ment Plan: Before Occupancy (Highly Recommended) This credit addresses the state of the building after constructi on completion and prior to or immediately upon occupancy of the building. The purpose of this credit is flush out the higher levels of off gassing associated with newly completed construc tion. Paints, adhesives, and carpets are all associated with de trimental elements that in high concentrations could negatively affect tenants. This credit provides two options, one of which is flushing the building with

PAGE 175

175 specified quantities of outside ai r and the other is a prescribed Environmental Protection Agency provision to prove the quality of th e air. This credit falls at a very busy and difficult time during the construction process a nd special attention must be paid to ensure proper documentation to meet the specifics and intent of the credit. The difficulty with this credit is that for Option 1 there can be no punch-list work taking place that involves VOC emitting to xins and since the HVAC syst em will be running in flush mode there can be no HVAC balancing work done at this time. Other commissioning activities such as fire alarm testing, lighting controls conveying system testing, and communication system testing may take place at this time. If this time is set aside during the original construction schedule and allowable testing take s place in conjunction with the flush-out then there should be no additional costs. However, if this option is considered a separate activity specifically designated to achieve this credit then there woul d be a general conditions costs incurred by the contractor for time and personnel to oversee the flush-out process. Similarly, if Option two is selected there w ould be additional testing costs associated with testing and verifying results. Regardless of which option is selected the filters associated with all HVAC equipment would be cleaned or replaced at the end of the flush-out period. It is generalized that the testing requirements and gene ral conditions costs would be si milar and the additional costs would be associated with the filter replacements. The GSA study estimates $21,330, or $0.08/GSF, to cover contractor premiums and filte r replacements for Option one. This earns an LCV score of 3. EQ Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials: Adhesives and Se alants (Highly Recommended) EQ Credit 4 Low Emitting Materials defines acce ptable levels of off gassing for common building elements such as adhesives, paints, carpets, and composite wood products. Each of these product groups have their own set of standa rds or associated trade requirements to help select designated acceptable materials. The overall applicability of products is designated as those products installed with th e weatherproofing barrier. Exte rior paints and the like are excluded from the credit requirements. A key to achieving all points asso ciated with EQ Credit 4 Low-Emitting Materials is to include the re quirements for low VOC products within the projects specifications and in all related construction doc uments. Common products for inclusion are noted as flooring adhesives, fire -stopping sealants, caulking, duct sealants and mastic, and plumbing adhesives. The costs associated with this credit will be discussed under EQ Credit 4.4 Low Emitting Materials: Composite Woods. EQ Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials: Paints and Co atings (Highly Recommended) As with all points available under EQ Cred it 4 Low-Emitting Materials the object of the category is to reduce or limit the quantity of indoor air contaminants that are irritating or harmful to builders and occupants. The costs associated with this credit will be discussed under EQ Credit 4.4 Low Emitting Materials: Composite Woods. EQ Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials: Carpet Systems (Highly Recommended) Similar all credits that fall under EQ Credit 4.3 this credit requires carpeting products to meet a strict standard designed to limit product off gassing. Strategies for this credit include

PAGE 176

176 clear specifications and produc t requirements throughout the construction documents and care during installation should adhesives be used. Products may be e ither certified under the Green Label Plus program or be tested by qualified independent laboratories to ensure product appropriateness. The costs associated with this credit will be discusse d under EQ Credit 4.4 Low Emitting Materials: Composite Wood. EQ Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials: Composite Wood (Highly Recommended) The purpose of this credit is to limit exposur e to urea-formaldehyde resins used in wood products. Emphasis on the above should be placed on laminating adhesives used on-site and in shop production of finished materials. The inclus ion of low-emitting material credits have truly transformed and educated the market place regarding low-VOC and urea-formaldehyde free wood products. Paints, carpets, a nd sealants are curre ntly available at no additional costs compared to their traditional counterparts. EQ Credits 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 all earn an LCV of 2. Unlike its EQ Credit 4 predecessors, EQ Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials: Composite Wood currently carries a premium compared to its traditiona lly manufactured counterparts. The additional cost for this credit would be predicated on the amount of wood used in the building and strategy used in selecting the wood types used to meet th e required percentage. For lowVOC wood interior applications the GSA study (GSA 2004) lists costs for a traditional solid core single door at $1,013.14 and a low-VOC solid core single door at $1,126.91 which equates to an 11.2% premium for greener doors. The overall increase in budget for the GSA study, which focused mainly only on interior constructi on and furnishing wood products, showed a budget increase from $804,176 dollars to $868,187 dollars or a 7.9% premium, for low-VOC wood products. Since this credit is largely design and feasibility orient ed it earns an LCV value of between 3 and 5. EQ Credit 5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control (Highly Recommended) This credit seeks to control cross contaminati on of dirt, pollutants, and cleaning materials via design schemes that limit intrusion, isolate, a nd ventilate sources of the contamination. The credit is divided into three main criteria all of which must be met to earn this point. The first criteria address limiting outside pollutants from entering the buildi ng via various forms of debris, the second looks to contain cleaning supply off gassing, and the third seeks to control dust and particles via improve d air filtration. Employ permanent entryway systems at least six feet long in the primary direction of travel to capture dirt and part iculates from entering the build ing at all entryways that are directly connected to the outdoors. Accepta ble entryway systems include permanently installed grates, grilles, or slotted system s that allow for cleaning underneath. Roll-out mats are only acceptable when maintained on a weekly basis by a contracted service organization. Qualifying entryway s are those that serve as regu lar entry points for building users. Where hazardous gases or chemicals may be present or used (including garages, housekeeping/laundry areas and copying/printing rooms), exhaust each space sufficiently to create negative pressure with respect to adjacent spaces with the doors to the room

PAGE 177

177 closed. For each of these spaces, provide self-closing doors and deck to deck partitions or a hard lid ceiling. The exhaust rate shall be at least 0.50 cfm/sq.ft., with no air recirculation. The pressure differential with the surrounding sp aces shall be at least 5 Pa (0.02 inches of water gauge) on average and 1 Pa (0.004 inches of water) at a minimum when the doors to the rooms are closed. In mechanically ventilated buildings, provide regularly occupied areas of the building with air filtration media prior to occupancy th at provides a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 13 or better. Filtration shou ld be applied to process both return and outside air that is to be delivered as supply air. This credit needs to be addressed at the onset of design to ensure that all three criteria are considered. Should the criteria be included in the design scheme early on there should limited or no additional costs. Similar to ot her design credits the cost associat ed with this credit is largely dependent on the variance between consideratio ns accounted for in an existing standard and those detailed by the USGBC credit requirement s. For example the GSA considers walk-off mats and segregated exhausts for all janitor closets as part of their existing building program and not additions to achieve this LEED credit. The GSA considers this a no cost credit. As for university projects, should this cr edit be tackled early on in th e design process the credit will earn an LCV of between 2 and 4 depending on the amount of square footage space influenced by this credit and existing a pplicable standards. EQ Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems: Lighting (Conditionally Recommended) The design intent for this credit is to give occupants control over the building systems that may directly affect performance such as task lighting and thermal comfort. EQ Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems: Lighting places design emphasis on individual and group control over lighting systems. Both criteria must be met in order to ach ieve this point. Key design element is to incorporate task lighting into the overall lighti ng and energy design scheme. The key to this credit is that the minimum requirement from the USGBC to earn this credit is the availability of an on/off switch for individual and multi-occu pant spaces. Designing beyond the minimum switch requirement with techniques such as da ylighting sensors, adjustable lights and switch controls, and motion sensing devi ces may add extra costs depending on the strategies applied to the project. This credit earns an LCV of be tween 2 and 4 depending on the complexity, or simplicity, of the control and lighting systems. EQ Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems: Thermal (Conditionally Recommended) Similar to lighting control design program, the thermal comfort credit places an emphasis on individual and group control over thermal systems. Comfort system criteria must be met for both individual and group occupant space. A key to this credit is to note that occupants need to have control of at least one of the conditions for thermal comfort, either air temperature, radiant temperature, air speed, or humidity. This cred it provides various options and strategies for achieving its goals. Any number of individual de sign techniques, individu ally or in conjunction with other techniques, may be used at va rious costs to meet the requirements.

PAGE 178

178 Since the GSA utilizes under floor air distribu tion systems in its basic building program it considers this credit a no cost option. For programs not utilizing an under floor distribution system then options such as operable windows and individual contro ls become the main strategies for achieving this credit. This cr edit earns an LCV of be tween 2 and 5 depending on the base building program. EQ Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort : Design (Recommended) This credit utilizes a desi gn standard developed to ma ximize the optimum range of temperature and humidity based on the building site s given climate range. The essential point of this credit is to include ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 from the onset of the design scheme. Also consider the impacts and synergies with other EQ credits such as EQ Credit 1 and EQ Credit 2. Should the existing building program include ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 then this credit earns an LCV of 1 or 2 as a no cost item. Should the current standard not be included then a building takeoff for the required materials and installation costs would be needed. This earns an LCV of between 1 and 5. EQ Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort: Verifi cation (Conditionally Recommended) This is a unique credit in that it requires a plan for data collection that will take place six to 18 months after occupancy. This point allows for follow-up data to be collected and analyzed in order to verify system performance. The noted standard above provides guidelines for follow-up and the USGBC has provided a point for those desi gn teams to receive credit for capitulating. This is a non-construction cost and is dependent on the amount of surveys and measurements needed to be in accord with AS HREA Standard 55-2004. Unless considered part of the formal existing building program this wo uld be considered an added costs for most building construction budgets since the work takes place six to 18 months after building completion. This earns an LCV cost estimate of 3. EQ Credit 8.1 Daylight and Views: Day light 75% of Spaces (Highly Recommended) Daylighting may contribute to energy effici ency as well as providing for increases in occupant productivity and health. There needs to be attention paid for balancing daylighting goals and those of space planning and work function. The design in tent is to maximize interior daylighting schemes. High performance glaz ing should be consider ed throughout the design plan. Whether or not to pursue this credit is a design consideration. Once the decision has been made to pursue this credit then the costs become part of the associated requirement costs and subsequently part of the construction budget. This credit would earn an LCV value of 5 for most buildings. It is important to note that daylight enhancing louvers were the significant a dditional cost, 41% of total identified additional LEED costs, with regard to design strategy pur sued in Rinker Hall. Should a strategy been developed that did not rely on this technology it may have been completed for far less.

PAGE 179

179 EQ Credit 8.2 Daylight and Views: Views for 90% of Spaces (Recommended) This credit follows the trend biophilia hypothesis that humans have a need to be connected to the outdoors and whereby views of the outdoors enhance productivity. This need results in proposed benefits to human performance, h ealth, and emotional wellbeing (Griffin 2007). Design schemes used to meet these criteria are slender building foot prints, lower partition heights, and interior glazing. The GSA study (GSA 2004) notes the following likely strategies for achieving this credit: Minimize number of enclosed spaces within the building and provide significant open work areas. Minimize number of enclosed spaces located along the building perimeter. Incorporate view windows (interior glazing pane ls) in enclosed spaces. This applies to spaces along the perimeter of the building that may block views to the exterior and to interior enclosed spaces. Select systems furniture with at least some lo w-height panels to allow for view corridors. The primary issue with this credit is whethe r or not this type of connectivity to the outdoors is feasible given the build ings program design. If the general design principles provide for this opportunity then it is a matter of determining the additional costs associated with achieving this credit. Although the GSA courthous e study did not determine this credit feasible due to the security concerns it did provide an es timate of costs for an office remodeling project (GSA 2004). The design provided for the additi on of 9,700 square feet of glazing panels to allow for view access. The panels measuring five feet by 3 and a half feet cost approximately $346,371 or $1.13/GSF. Due to the costs being direct ly tied to the design of the structure and space needs of the owner this credit earns an LCV of between 2 and 5. ID Credits 1 to 1.4 Innovation in De sign (Conditionally Recommended) Credit 1.1 (1 point) In writing, identify the in tent of the proposed innovation credit, the proposed requirement for compliance, the proposed submittals to demonstrate compliance, and the design approach (strat egies) that might be used to meet the requirements. Credit 1.2 (1 point) Same as Credit 1.1 Credit 1.3 (1 point) Same as Credit 1.1 Credit 1.4 (1 point) Same as Credit 1.1 Credit 2 (1 point) Having a LEED Accredited Professional (AP) invol ved with the job at the earliest point possible.

PAGE 180

180 Currently the USGBC allows for up to four exemplary credits to be submitted under the Innovation and Design Category. Exemplary Credits are those credits which exceed existing credit requirements by a defined percentage or am ount or surpass the intent of the credit based on predetermined measure. There ar e a total of sixteen possible ex emplary credits of which four will be allowed to be submitted under the Innov ation and Design Category. Exemplary credits are available for the following items und LEED 2.2: Sustainable Sites Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation Create and submit to the USGBC an overall transportation plan for the project site noting the benefits and savings of incorporated techniques. This credit ea rns an LCV between 2 and 3 based soft costs involved in producing and documen ting the plan and whether or not the credit was chosen at the start of the project. Sustainable Sites Credit 5.1 Site Devel opment Protect or Restore Habitat Requirement is to protect or restore an additi onal 25% of the site for a total of 75% of the site. This is a site dependent and design pr ogram dependent credit earning an LCV of 2. Sustainable Sites Credit 5.2 Maximize Open Space Requirement involves doubling the amount of open space required on a project. This is a desi gn dependent cost and given a LCV of 2. Sustainable Sites Credit 7.1 H eat Island Effect Non-roof Requirement is for 100% albedo surfaces or 100% of the parking to be covered. This credit earns an LCV of between 2 and 5 depending on the options and techniques used in achieving this credit. Sustainable Sites Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect Roof Requirements are for a 100% vegetative roof design. This credit earns and LCV of between 3 and 5. Water Efficiency Credit 2 Innovative Wast e Water Technologies Requirements 100% reduction of potable water for sewage conve yance or to process 100% of wastewater onsite. Under LEED 2.2 this would involve an LCV of between 2 and 5. Water Efficiency Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction by 30% Requirements are to reduce overall potable water usage by an additional 10% for a 40% cumulative reduction. Depending on the design strategies and availability of grey water this credit would earn an LCV of between 2 and 5. Energy and Atmosphere Credit 6 Green Po wer Requirements are to double minimum amount of power purchased to 70% or to doubl e the minimum length of contract time to four years. Depending on the amount of power and surcharge for green power this credit earns an LVC of between 3 and 5. Materials and Resources Credit 2.2 Construc tion Waste Manageme nt, Divert 75% from Disposal Requirements for this credit are to raise the amount of waste diverted an additional 20% for a 95% total waste diversion ra te. In large scale c onstruction this credit seems extremely difficult to achieve, as such it earns an LCV credit of between 3 and 5

PAGE 181

181 depending on the materials used in constructi on and the waste management plan developed for the job. Materials and Resources Cred it 3.2 Materials Reuse, 10% The Requirements for this credit are to increase the reuse percentage by five resulting in a mi nimum 15% reuse rate. This cost would have been calculated on a job by job basis, as a result it earns an LCV of between 2 and 5. Materials and Resources Credit 4.2 Recycled C ontent, 20% Requirements for this credit are to increase the recycled content percentage to 30% Depending on the materials required this earns an LCV of between 2 and 5. Materials and Resources Cred it 5.2 Regional Materials, 20 % Extracted, Processed, and Manufactured Requirements are to raise th e minimum requirements 20% for a total of 40%. The GSA study lists products available fo r most projects that easily meets this requirement as a result this earns an LCV of 2. Materials and Resources Credit 6 Rapidly Re newable material 2.5% total materials value Requirements for exemplary performance are to raise the percentage an additional 2.5% for a total of 5%. This earns an LCV of between 2 and 5. Materials and Resources Credit 7 Certif ied Wood 50% wood-based materials Requirements for exemplary performance ar e to raise the wood obtained from certified forests an additional 45% to a minimum of 95%. This earns an LCV of between 2 and 5. Indoor Environmental Quality 8.1 Daylight and Views, Daylight 75% of spaces Requirements for exemplary performance are to provide daylight for 95% of the building spaces. This earns an LCV of between 2 and 5. Indoor Environmental Quality 8.2 Daylight and Views, Views for 90 % Requirements are to exceed the 90% threshold established for this credit. The USGBC notes that this credit will be reviewed on a case-by-case basi s. This earns an LCV of between 2 and 5. ID Credit 2: Innovation and Design LEED Accredited Professional (AP) The USGBC provides testing to certify individuals as LEED Accredited Professionals. There are no educational prerequisites or qualificat ions established for taking the exam. Once an individual takes and passes th e exam they are allo wed to note their qualifications as a LEED Accredited professional. The focus of the exam is on the understandi ng and interpretation of LEED credits and the processing of LEED docum entation for submittal and review to the USGBC. The intent of the credit is to encourag e members of the build te am to have a working understanding of the LEED process to facilitate integrated design and streamline the submission of credit documents. The GSA, IHS, and the University of Florid as Facility and Planning Department have several staff members that are LEED accredited a nd do not consider this an additional cost.

PAGE 182

182 There are, however, two distinctly different desi gn team approaches that have evolved regarding LEED APs and how projects are coordinated and pr ocessed. The first approach is that of an experienced design team with several memb ers having LEED experience and with team members having the ability to review, coordi nate, and submit LEED documentation directly. Typically there is a central coordinator that tr acks work and oversees the process and serves at the single source of cont act with the Owner and the USGBC. The USGBC estimates this type of work to take between 80 and 150 hours. A cost estimate for this work would range between $8,000 and $15,000 for overseeing the process. The second approach is one in which the LEED AP serves as the sole coordinator, revi ewer, and submitter of LEED project data. The difference between the two approaches is the amount of time the LEED AP spends in either creating supporting documentation or reviewing each credit in detail. An example of this might be the difference, in time and effort, between submitting the documentation for the Water Efficiency Credit 1.1: Water Efficient Lands caping and reviewing the calculations and supporting documentation prior to submitting to the US GBC. The first being a simple transfer of information with little time invested and the latter taking several hours to ensure the proper information is provided and is correct. UFs Facility and Planning Department estimates that this takes twice the amount of time as estimated by the USGBC resulting in a cost estimate of between $16,000 and $30,000. UF processes all record s submitted to the USGBC as part of their Project Managers general responsibilities and co nsiders these functions as no additional costs. Summary The focus of this appendix was two-fold, firstly to provide an outline of the processes the University of Florida Facilities and Planning department follows with regard to achieving LEED credits and secondly to provide a summary of the individual LEED prer equisite and credit requirements.

PAGE 183

183 Table B-1. University of Florida LEED Credit Ratings Rating Description Required (Req) Design criteria is either a LEED prerequisite or falls under a FPC directive. Highly Recommended (HR) Designa ted as good building practice. Recommended (R) Provides benefits that can be easily justified, however must be tested in the context of the specific design solution. Conditionally Recommended (CR) Criteria is beneficial in some applications, however may be inappropriate in others. Table B-2. Bike rack and shower facilities for commercial users Number of FTE occupants Bike racks (5%) Construction cost estimate Shower facilities (0.5%) Construction cost estimate 33 2 $100 1 $5,457 100 5 $220 1 $5,457 300 15 $660 2 $10,914 950 48 $2100 5 $27,282

PAGE 184

184 Figure B-1. Construction waste ma nagement plan implementation Design Team Develop a Construction Waste Management (CWM) Specification and overall project goal (i.e., 50% Diverted waste). Include in all Contract Documents. General Contractor Develop formal jobsite CWM plan. General Contractor or Waste Manager Sorting, hauling, and documenting tasks.

PAGE 185

185 LIST OF REFERENCES Beach, L. R., and Connolly, T. (2005). The psychology of decision making: People in organizations Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks. Crowe, T. J., and Noble, J. S. (1998). "Multi-attribute analysis of ISO 9000 registration using AHP." International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 15(2), 205-222. Depot, H. (2007). "Millstead W ood Purchasing Policy." Atlanta. www.homedepot.com (Last accessed March 7, 2007). Eijadi, D., Vaidya, P., Reinertsen, J., and Kumar, S. (2002). "Introducing co mparative analysis to the LEED system: A case for rational and re gional application." Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley. http://reposito ries.cdlib.org/ibnl/LBNL-51291 (Last accessed May 13, 2007). FDE (2006). "Florida' s energy act." Florida Department of Energy, Tallahassee. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/energy/fla_energy/incentives.htm (Last accessed June 1, 2 006). Fisk, W. J. (2000). "Health and productivity ga ins from better indoor environments and their relationships with build ing energy efficiency." Annual Review of Energy and Environment 25, 537-566. Foxon, T. "Applying systems thinking and practi ce for promoting sustainable innovation." Science and Tecnology Policy Research Sussex, England, 15. FSEC (2006). "Florida's building energy use." Florida Solar Energy Center University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/ (Last accessed June 1, 2006). Geshwiler, M. (2003). "ASRAE green guide." W. Stephen Com stock, Atlanta, GA, 170. Griffin, C. (2007). "An introducti on to biophilia and the built environment." Rocky Mountain Institute, Berkely. http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1079.php (Last access ed March 10, 2007). Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology :principles and practice Optimal Books, Colville, WA. Grumman, D. L. (2003). "ASHRAE green guide." American Society of Heating, Refrigerant, and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA, 170. GSA. (2004). "GSA LEED cost study final report." GS-11P-99-MAD-0565 U.S. General Service Administrati on, Washington, DC. Heschong-Mahone-Group. (1999). "Daylighting in schools an inves tigation into the relationship between daylighti ng and human performance." Th e Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Fair Oaks, CA.

PAGE 186

186 IHS. (2006). "LEED cost evaluation study." Deparm ent of Health and Huma n Services Indian Health Services, Rockville, MD. IISD. (2004). "Perceptions and definitions of soci al responsibility." Inte rnational Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg. Kats, G. "The costs and financial benefits of green buildings." USGBC Annual Conference Pittsburgh, PA. Kibert, C. (2002). Construction ecology:nature as the basis for green buildings Spon Press, London ; New York. Lyle, J. T. (1994). Regenerative design for sustainable development John Wiley, New York. McGraw-Hill. (2006). "Green buildi ng smart market report." Lexington, MA. Morris, P. (2004). "Examining the cost of green." Davis Langdon, Seattle, WA. http://www.davislangdon.com/USA/ Research/ResearchFinder/2004-Examining-the-Costof-Green/ Norris, G. A., and Marshall, H. E. (1995). "Multiattribute decision analysis method for evaluating buildings and building systems." NISTIR 5663, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. Odum, H. T. (2001). "An energy hierarchy law for biogeochmecial cycles. In Emergy Synthesis, Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodolgy." Center for Environmental Policy, Gainesville, FL. OEMC (2003). "A high performance design succe ss story: North Boulde r Recreation Center earns a silver." Governor's Office of Energy Management a nd Conservation, Denver, CO. http://www.colorado.gov/rebuildco /success/local/boulder_rec.htm (Last access ed May 15, 2007). OPPAGA. (2006). "Higher education facility construction co sts are reasonable; some improvements could maximize use of campus classroom space." 06-31, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Govern ment Accountability, Tallahassee, FL. Pearce, D. W., and Warford, J. J. (1993). World without end:economics, environment, and sustainable development : summary World Bank, Washington, D.C. PECI. (2002). "Establishing commissioning costs." Portland Energy Conservation, Inc., Portland. Saaty, T. L. (1982). Decision making for leaders, Wadsworth, Inc., Belmont.

PAGE 187

187 Schendler, A., and Udall, R. (2005). "LEED is broken Let's fix it." Aspen. http://www.aspensnowmass.com/environment/news.cfm (Last accessed May 22, 2007). Shabecoff, P. (2000). Ea rth rising Island Press, Washington, DC. Steele, J. (1997). Sustainable architecture McGraw-Hill, New York. Su, S. Y. W., Dujmovic, J., Batory, D. S., Navathe, S. B., and Elnicki, R. (1987). "A cost-benefit decision model: analysis, comparison, and se lection of data management systems." ACM Transaction on Database Systems 12(3), 472-520. Torcellini, P., Pless, S., Deru, M., Griffith, B., Long, N., and Judkoff, R. (2006). "Lessons learned from case studies of six high-p erformance buildings." National Renewable Energy Labratory, Golden, CO. UN. (1993). Agenda 21 : programme of action for sustainable development ; Rio Declaration on environment and development;Statement of Forest Principles:the final text of agreements negotiated by governments at the Unite d Nations conference on environment and development (UNCED), 3-14 June 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil United Nations, New York, NY. USGBC. (2000). "Making the business case for high performance green buildings." United States Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. USGBC (2007). "USGBC webpage." Washington, DC. www.usgbc.org (Last accessed June 1, 2007). van Bueren, E. M., and Priem us, H. (2002). "Insti tutional barriers to su stainable construction." Enviromental Planning 29, 75 86. Venture, B. a. I. R. (2002). "Contractors gui de Save money and resources through job-site recycling and waste prevention." King County Solid Waste Division, Seatle, WA. Wilson, A. (2005). "Making the case for green building." Environmental Building News 14(4), 12. WCED. (1987). "Our common future." United Nations World Commission for Environment and Development, Oxford, England.

PAGE 188

188 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH James Sullivans professional and education background leading to this degree is quite diverse. Upon graduating from Clearwater High School, Clearwater, Florid a, in 1984 he applied and was accepted to the University of Florida, Ga inesville. After successf ully graduating in four years with an advertising degree, he was offered a graduate positi on in the College of Journalism and Communications. He completed a Masters of Arts in Mass Communications within two years and turned his attention to the business world. During his college years Jim had worked as a general laborer, painter, la ndscape contractor, and rough carpenter. After a brief stint with Arthur Anderson he moved toward the consulting field and spent the better part of six years traveling the world working for BPA Internati onal. Having married a medical student who matched in Gainesville, he accepted a position at the university, conducting statistical analyses in the field of pediatric oncology. While workin g on this research, he was given the opportunity to take additional course work at UF. After taking classes for several year s and balancing fulltime work with full-time school and a teaching assistant position, he resigned from his research post to focus on the field of building construction. He worked for the Hines Company as a construction manager during the summer of 2001 and as a project manager with the Clark Construction Company in Bethesda, Maryla nd, after graduating in December 2001. He was accepted into the Ph.D. program at the University of Florida in the fall of 2003. During the 2003 to 2004 academic calendar Jim worked as a teaching assistant in the soils lab as well as a lecturer for the building materi als course. Starting with th e fall of 2005 he was awarded the Rinker Fellowship for research studies. During th is time Jim has also worked outside the college giving lectures regarding green building and de sign. Upon the completion of his degree in summer 2007 Jim accepted a position at UF lecturing in the field of building construction.